[HN Gopher] GitHub is fully available in Iran
___________________________________________________________________
GitHub is fully available in Iran
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 1631 points
Date : 2021-01-05 18:01 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (github.blog)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.blog)
| emilsedgh wrote:
| Github situation aside, as an Iranian (living in the US) I would
| like to use the opportunity to raise some awareness regarding
| Iranian sanctions by the US government.
|
| The US sanctions are part of a "maximum pressure" campaign on the
| Iranian government. The US government has banned the rest of the
| world from dealing with Iran. Therefore, Iran has no exports
| anymore.
|
| As a result, Iran's currency lost it's value ~10 times in the
| past decade (When the original sanctions where started by the
| Obama administration).
|
| The goal of the sanctions are to make people of Iran so miserable
| that they would go in streets and start a revolution. Now,
| Iranian people hate the Islamic Republic and would get rid of
| them if they could. But the Islamic Republic has no limits. They
| would shoot and kill and many as it takes.
|
| Another challenge for Iranian people and a revolution, except for
| Islamic regime's cruelty is an unknown future. Iran shares a lot
| of border with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iran also has many
| terrorist groups activated inside it already. That means there
| are real fears of Isis/Taliban/Other groups rushing to Iran if
| the central government is weakened.
|
| So people are scared of Islamic Republic, and also scare of what
| can come next.
|
| Therefore, basically, Maximum Pressure campaign's goal is to make
| people so miserable, they'd rather face bullets/wars.
|
| This has lead to some really devastating results. Middle class
| doesn't exist anymore. Some rural cities are reporting that
| people cannot pay for bread anymore. Most people cannot pay for
| chicken/meat anymore. Add Covid 19 to this, and a very
| incompetent and cruel government which has been rendered
| completely useless by the sanctions, and you get a complete
| disaster on your hand.
|
| The government is also quite scared, and to make sure there wont
| be uprisings, is spreading fear. They execute people and hand
| cruel sentences to everyone. Last weeks they gave a 10 years
| sentence to an 18 years makeup artist who had a famous Instagram
| account. Journalists are executed, etc. People's morale are
| completely shattered.
|
| So the bottom line is, the maximum pressure campaign has rendered
| Iranian people completely miserable. Even if it were to succeed
| wit topping Islamic Republic, there is no guarantee that it wont
| make Iran another Syria situation. Please, as a U.S. voter, I
| urge you to consider your support for stopping the sanctions.
| dvdhnt wrote:
| I feel badly for you, however, there's little evidence to
| suggest that we can change anything by voting. Mounting
| evidence suggest our "democracy" is a dog and pony show run by
| wealthy super villains, morally bankrupt politicians, and
| single-minded super-corporations.
|
| Our best bet is coalesce around each other, the working class,
| and build a better system of world governance.
|
| This will get downvoted but the truth is the US doesn't treat
| us any better. Plenty of people are given harsh sentences for
| victimless-crimes. Property is protected at all costs. The
| system is pay-to-play. You either get in line or are
| ostracized.
| exclusiv wrote:
| > the truth is the US doesn't treat us any better
|
| The parent stated "But the Islamic Republic has no limits.
| They would shoot and kill and many as it takes." Parent also
| stated "The government is also quite scared, and to make sure
| there wont be uprisings, is spreading fear. They execute
| people and hand cruel sentences to everyone. Last weeks they
| gave a 10 years sentence to an 18 years makeup artist who had
| a famous Instagram account. Journalists are executed, etc.
| People's morale are completely shattered."
|
| You, and others, don't have it better in the US? Really?
|
| I think you are trying to show empathy and I agree with most
| of your comment, but to me, you can't empathize unless you've
| experienced it.
|
| And I don't wish to demean experiences of some oppressed
| people in the US and their experiences (certainly the
| wrongfully convicted come to mind as a huge injustice), but
| your comment is not objectively accurate.
| jariel wrote:
| The US just voted for Biden who will probably have a
| different policy position than Trump and that's part of the
| package.
|
| It works on some level.
|
| Also, it's definitely the job of the US diplomatic corps to
| set out the strategy there because most plebes couldn't find
| Iran on a map.
|
| It'd be nice to try to explain the policy better, but as I
| check in with TikTok for a few minutes now and again, I don't
| think there's much hope there.
| djsumdog wrote:
| This decision is proof of that. Microsoft can work to lobby
| the government to get access in Iran, but there's no way 50
| person shop in Mississippi could even hope to without a few
| tens of millions to throw away on lobbyists or special
| interests groups.
| nickik wrote:
| An overall negative view of democracy. If you actually pool
| people on most issues, the outcome of politics is not so far
| off from what people want.
|
| The reality is that people simply don't care about Iran or
| know where it even is. Foreign policy issue outside of direct
| wars almost never dominate the political cycle.
|
| And even if they do on a presidential level, since only the
| president is relevant vote for a national level it impact is
| minimal. Congress elections usually don't turn on foreign
| policy.
| iAmir wrote:
| As an Iranian living in Iran, I think you must educate yourself
| and do actual researches to find causes of things that happened
| between Iran and the U.S.
|
| Sanctions to produce "maximum pressure" as you said is still
| against human rights but oh well guess how UN thinks about
| that. Putting citizens in misery is not how you treat a
| government, specially an Iranian one. You are just going
| against basic human rights, like not being able to import
| medicines or basic needs of people.
|
| The only miserable person here is you, someone who claims to be
| Iranian and yet thinks giving access to private repositories on
| a platform is against his beliefs, let alone the way you talk
| about Iranian people also makes you disrespectful human being.
|
| Your hatred against the government has nothing to do with
| Iranian people, so please, think twice before you post
| _anything_ on the internet again, if you can 't handle a simple
| thing like this, aka human rights, then you must have issues on
| giving opinions on other topics as well.
|
| Off-topic: seems like you're one of those iranis who escaped
| the country for whatever the situation you were in and now
| you've got the tongue to speak out, so you start attacking on
| normal citizens because YOU think that YOU are better than
| them, there's just too many of you, you're not the only one.
| Daho0n wrote:
| Nice to hear from a Real Iranian instead of an American
| pretending.
| sangnoir wrote:
| Do you think that every Iranian has the same political
| position? Emigrees tend to be self-selected towards being
| critical of the(ir) circumstances in the home-country, and
| even if they were not critical originally, experiencing a
| different way of life has a way of questioning if your
| previous experiences were the best approach. Even Americans
| who have lived abroad exhibit this.
| EarthIsHome wrote:
| > Please, as a U.S. voter, I urge you to consider your support
| for stopping the sanctions.
|
| How can a US voter actually affect change? What options are
| available for us to vote for?
| q3k wrote:
| Maybe give your government a taste of their own medicine: go
| to the streets and overthrow your evil, corrupt politicians.
| spoonjim wrote:
| Overthrow them and replace them with who? Who should be the
| leaders of the United States? I am open to ideas for who to
| vote for, and I think a lot of people are. That's why
| someone as obviously ill-suited for the job as Trump did
| win -- people are so desperate for something different but
| don't really know what they're looking for.
| q3k wrote:
| > replace them with who
|
| Someone who aligns with your views - like yourself.
| spoonjim wrote:
| I definitely shouldn't be a leader of the United States,
| trust me on that. So, given that, to whom should I give
| my vote and other power I may hold?
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| There's 300 million plus people in the United States.
| Sure, we could overthrow the government, but you can't
| just go "my way or the highway" with policies; you'll
| never get support doing that. As spoonjim said, Trump
| wasn't elected for no reason; He was elected because 62
| million plus people voted for him. And with this past
| election, that number went up to _74 million_. And the
| opposition (Biden /Harris) got _81 million_. For
| comparison, George Washington 's support was almost
| unanimous. Sure, it's not exactly the same, but
| Washington had the support he did because everyone
| believed in a common "enemy", the British Empire. Today,
| depending on who you ask, the enemy is either "the
| Demonrats" or "the Trumpanzees".[a]
|
| Not to mention that the United States itself wasn't
| formed overnight; it was the product of _many_
| compromises. There 's even a whole Broadway play about
| it: _Hamilton_ [b].
|
| [a]: Yes, these are actual "names" I've read online.
|
| [b]: Sure, it's exaggerated, but it's pretty accurate
| Daho0n wrote:
| >the enemy is either "the Demonrats" or "the
| Trumpanzees".
|
| You forgot Muslims, Mexicans, poor people and the non-
| white people of the US. They are just as much an enemy as
| the opposing political party (and the Russians and the
| Chinese....)
| wittyreference wrote:
| Can't wait to find some non-evil, non-corrupt politicians.
| Is there a Yelp for finding those?
| q3k wrote:
| Why not yourself?
| [deleted]
| darig wrote:
| The AR-15 seems popular.
| skybrian wrote:
| I'm not sure how much is by law and how much is by executive
| order, but I believe that when Biden gets in, he could make
| some changes unilaterally.
|
| So, essentially this would be about advocating for change by
| the Biden administration. It wouldn't be by voting (since the
| election is already done), but writing to your representative
| could help. Maybe there are advocacy groups that could use
| support?
|
| Advocating for changes is more likely to be effective with an
| administration that isn't fundamentally opposed to them.
| EarthIsHome wrote:
| > but I believe that when Biden gets in, he could make some
| changes unilaterally.
|
| What makes you think he will do any of that besides a
| belief?
| skybrian wrote:
| I wasn't saying he _will_ do it. I was saying he could.
|
| It seems the the US law was originally the Iran and Libya
| Sanctions Act [1] and there have been various laws
| extending it. Apparently they allow the President to
| waive sanctions on a case-by-case bases.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_Libya_Sanction
| s_Act
| jbay808 wrote:
| You can write a letter to your representative!
| EarthIsHome wrote:
| These suggestions are age-old tactics [0] used to placate
| the population and prevent actual, material change.
|
| [0]: https://twitter.com/StuffFromSam/status/13443135662544
| 77313?...
| tikwidd wrote:
| This should be higher up.
|
| Here's my cynical take: the most effective way to lift the
| sanctions would be lobbying from US corporations. Lifting
| sanctions is probably profitable for every US business with a
| market in Iran, so if you work at a US corporation, lobby
| your boss!
| thenewwazoo wrote:
| Your comment breaks my heart, and I hate what my country is
| doing to Iran. Reactionaries started the problems in 1953, and
| they're perpetuating and multiplying it today. Unfortunately
| for those of us who wish to appeal to the better natures of the
| right wing in the USA that support these sanctions, the cruelty
| _is the point_ :
| https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt...
| Daho0n wrote:
| >wish to appeal to the better natures of the right wing
|
| You voted for the right wing last time you voted (I know
| because there are no one else to vote for). The Democrats are
| also right-wing, anti-Iran, pro-Israel, etc.
| EB-Barrington wrote:
| Note: the US has placed economic sanctions against Iran every
| single day for the last four decades - regardless of who was
| US president, or which party was in power.
| spoonjim wrote:
| > Please, as a U.S. voter, I urge you to consider your support
| for stopping the sanctions.
|
| What does this mean? Who should I vote for?
| nanna wrote:
| OP is referring to voting in general, not in particular, as
| you're asking.
|
| And unless you're in Georgia this obviously has no bearing on
| current candidates.
|
| In general, the GOP, especially under Trump, have pursued the
| policy of sanctions against Iran at all costs. The Democrats
| have not.
|
| So the answer to your question is pretty obvious, don't you
| think?
| EB-Barrington wrote:
| The Democrats have placed economic sanctions against Iran
| every day the party has been in power for the last forty
| years.
|
| (so have the Republicans)
| jackson1442 wrote:
| A good start might be to contact your representatives, see
| what their thoughts on Iran are, and make your case. If they
| aren't interested, check out the opposition.
|
| Other than that, I'm not sure.
| umvi wrote:
| > Now, Iranian people hate the Islamic Republic and would get
| rid of them if they could. But the Islamic Republic has no
| limits. They would shoot and kill and many as it takes.
|
| That's the problem with dictatorships. The only way to purchase
| a democracy again is with a _lot_ of blood. Hopefully you had
| some sort of 2A rights (probably not since they are first to go
| under dictatorship) or else you 'll be relying a lot on foreign
| provided weapons to break free in the future. Good luck, bad
| governments almost never "natually" become better over time.
| Power will continue to be consolidated.
|
| Basically your whole comment amounts to "yes our government is
| evil, but we can't do anything to change it without people
| dying, and we aren't willing to do that so... just remove all
| the sanctions because people are suffering and it's better to
| have an evil government prosper than to prevent it from
| prospering by making its citizens suffer"
|
| That said, I don't think Iranians should be barred from GitHub.
| Free exchange of ideas and code should be available
| universally.
| bgorman wrote:
| This is misleading at best.
|
| Every country that has the ability to enrich uranium is 99% of
| the way there towards developing nuclear weapons.
|
| Iran feels threatened. Countries that have felt threatened
| (North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel) have developed nuclear
| weapons.
|
| The sanctions are there as a deterrent to Iran having a Nuclear
| weapons program.
|
| Anyone who thinks it is possible for a country to have Nuclear
| power but not nuclear weapons is a fool.
| stretchcat wrote:
| > _Countries that have felt threatened ([...] Israel) have
| developed nuclear weapons._
|
| What evidence is there for this? At the time, Israel claimed
| that Egypt was trying to develop a nuclear bomb. However in
| his 1963 letter to Ben-Gurion, JFK says that American
| intelligence agencies had found no evidence of this and
| believed Egypt did not have facilities capable of it (unlike
| Israel.) To ny knowledge, in the decades since then, evidence
| of the alleged Egyptian bomb program has never surfaced.
|
| > _" I can well appreciate your concern for developments in
| the UAR. But I see no present or imminent nuclear threat to
| Israel from there. I am assured that our intelligence on this
| question is good and that the Egyptians do not presently have
| any installation comparable to Dimona, nor any facilities
| potentially capable of nuclear weapons production. But, of
| course, if you have information that would support a contrary
| conclusion, I should like to receive it from you through
| Ambassador Barbour. We have the capacity to check it."_
|
| -JFK, 1963
|
| https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/kennedy-letter-to-
| ben-g...
| jariel wrote:
| ? Israel was invaded and nearly overrun several times, by
| many of it's neighbours, with a combined population 30x
| it's own.
|
| It's neighbours continued to make public proclamations that
| they wanted to 'wipe it out'.
|
| If that is not 'threatening' then what is?
|
| Iran, in contrast, faces no real existential threat. Not
| Russia, Turkey. Saudis couldn't really if they wanted to.
| Iraq is weak and they control most of it.
| stretchcat wrote:
| Israel was the first country in the middle east to
| acquire nuclear weapons. The UAR did not have nuclear
| weapons and wasn't developing them (despite Israel's
| unsubstantiated claims to the contrary), nor did Israel
| need nuclear weapons to defend itself (Ben-Gurion
| admitted that in 1963 to JFK.) And even if they weren't
| capable of defending themselves with conventional arms,
| the JFK administration offered to ensure the protection
| of Israel in exchange for inspections of Dimona to stop
| Israel's bomb program. Israel turned this offer down, and
| refused inspections of Dimona.
|
| Israel did not need an atomic bomb. In developing nuclear
| weapons (in cooperation with the white supremacist state
| of South Africa, it should be noted) Israel ensured that
| other middle east countries would eventually seek them.
| They deliberately threw water onto an oil fire.
|
| _' David Ben-Gurion: Message to US President Kennedy
| Regarding UAR Threats'_
| (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ben-gurion-message-
| to-u...)
|
| > _2. Israel is not helpless: in a test of strength it
| can defeat all three but it is not eager for such a
| victory._
|
| > _3. Israel finds it difficult to believe that the
| United States and the civilized world would acquiesce in
| such an attempt at "liberation"._
|
| In other words, Ben-Gurion admitted Israel could protect
| itself alone if needed, but doubted it would even need
| to.
| jariel wrote:
| Israel is a small country without allies (it didn't then)
| which was invaded a few times by much bigger nations
| around it, some of whom, to this day, want to destroy it.
|
| Of all non-superpower nations, Israel's quest for Nukes
| is probably the most rational.
|
| They have zero will or capability to wage any material
| war of conquest (beyond East Bank/Golan), there is zero
| chance that they could feasibly use those weapons to
| 'invade' Jordan, Syria, Saudi etc.. They couldn't hope to
| occupy any such territory. Ergo - they can only
| materially be used for defence. Besides - anything else
| and the entire world (including the US) would turn on
| them.
|
| Israel's nukes has not caused others to seek nukes really
| - that's far flung. Iran is not threatened in any way by
| Israel.
|
| Ironically - the opposite is true: Iran's nukes will
| destabilize the entire region and cause major problems.
| Saudi has access to nuke tech from Pakistan, and if Iran
| ever for a moment brandishes such a weapon, they will
| magically appear in Saudi very quickly.
|
| Other players are likely to be able to overcome the
| geopolitical pressure to avoid them, but the fact is
| 'they would want to have them'.
|
| Nobody is afraid of Israel, but almost everyone around
| Iran is afraid of Iran.
|
| The 'conflict' in the ME is no longer Israel vs. Egypt an
| everyone else, now, it's Iran vs. Saudi and everyone
| else.
| stretchcat wrote:
| > _Israel is a small country without allies (it didn 't
| then)_
|
| This just isn't true, America was offering to ensure
| their safety and Israel believed that if they were
| attacked, America and other first world countries would
| come to their defense. They acquired nuclear weapons
| anyway. This is all spelled out in the correspondence you
| can read here: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/john-
| f-kennedy-administ...
|
| What's more, those documents reveal the Israeli
| government was exaggerating the military competence and
| ability of the UAR in PR campaigns directed at the
| Israeli and American publics.
| golergka wrote:
| Developing a nuclear bomb isn't the same as developing an
| actually useful nuclear weapon: you still have to develop a
| rocket to deliver it somewhere else than your test site.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not use
| rockets or missiles. I think a bomber aircraft would work
| just fine.
| lemonspat wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48
|
| and in today's news:
| https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13657927/iran-warns-us-
| trigger...
| dvdhnt wrote:
| Honest question, if the sanctions are causing misery and the
| people basically have to choose between death and poverty,
| will it not just cause more resentment? Wouldn't the people
| eventually become so angry at the Western World that they
| support Nuclear proliferation for, at best, defense/power
| and, at worst, revenge?
| emilsedgh wrote:
| I personally full supported Obama's sanctions on Iran. They
| had a purpose (Stop Iran's nuclear program) that made sense
| and was achievable.
|
| And they achieved it. All European countries and united
| nations and Obama administration confirmed that Iran was
| committed to the nuclear deal.Even current and former Israel
| generals wrote letters to show support for Obama's deal with
| Iran which stopped Iranian nuclear program.
|
| What the current administration wants is much much more than
| that [0]. They are basically telling the Islamic Republic to
| shoot itself in the head. Or face sanctions.
|
| Of course they pick sanctions.
|
| [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/5/21/mike-pompeo-
| speech-...
| stretchcat wrote:
| In 1963 JFK told Ben-Gurion that Israel developing nuclear
| weapons would lead to other countries in the region also
| pursuing nuclear weapons. Israel did it anyway, JFK's
| prediction obviously came true, and now America is saddled
| with Israel's problems; trying to stop Iran from doing what
| Israel did, because Israel did it. The sanctions are
| decades late and aimed at the wrong country.
|
| https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/kennedy-letter-to-
| ben-g...
| joelbluminator wrote:
| I think it was Einstein, Openheimer and others who told
| the U.S that there will be a nuclear arms race, way WAY
| before Israel acquired nukes. Let's keep up the blame
| game though.
| jariel wrote:
| Iran is not threatened, there is nobody that could invade
| them except the United States, and that would be unthinkable.
|
| Iran wants nuclear weapons to swing a heavier stick and
| threaten it's neighbours.
| publicola1990 wrote:
| Many countries have nuclear power plants without having
| weapons program, Turkey, South Africa, Japan, Many Eastern-
| Bloc countries.
| sangnoir wrote:
| correction/clarification: _Apartheid_ South Africa not only
| had a nuclear weapons program (in cooperation with Israel)
| - they had nuclear weapons.
|
| South Africa hastily dismantled its nuclear weapons program
| ahead of majority rule - becoming the _only_ country to
| voluntarily give up nuclear weapons. Though it still stocks
| the weapons-grade nuclear material in storage.
| jbay808 wrote:
| Canada has nuclear power, but I'm pretty sure Canada doesn't
| have nuclear weapons.
| bgorman wrote:
| Canada is a part of NATO, and NATO militaries have
| strategies for the sharing of nuclear weapons. In the past
| nuclear weapons were stored in Canada.
| jariel wrote:
| "Maximum Pressure campaign's goal is to make people so
| miserable, they'd rather face bullets/wars."
|
| No, Iran, including the 'Regime' would actually be doing just
| fine if they dropped nuclear ambitions and stopped supporting
| the overthrow of Saudi Arabia.
|
| It's an odd paradox, because _even the Islamic Revolutionaries_
| could be a quasi-ally of the US if they really wanted to. The
| US cares about security, predictability, trade and cooperation
| between state actors first, internal issues second.
|
| " the maximum pressure campaign has rendered Iranian people
| completely miserable" - the Iranian government has rendered
| people miserable. Stop blaming the US for the bad behaviour of
| the regime.
|
| Maybe we can have 'GitHub Diplomacy' ...
| golergka wrote:
| > The goal of the sanctions are to make people of Iran so
| miserable that they would go in streets and start a revolution.
|
| It's not the only or even the main goal. The main goal of such
| sanctions is to Iranian government to not have resources for
| war and terrorism. And it seems that in this regard, these
| sanctions work just fine.
|
| I don't know what else could be reasonably expected from US by
| all the other ME countries.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| > The main goal of such sanctions is to Iranian government to
| not have resources for war and terrorism.
|
| Maybe against other countries, but they just end up using the
| resources they have to do that anyways... just against their
| own citizens. Sanctions are nothing more than using civilians
| with no choice as a pawn to force a revolution because we
| couldn't do it ourselves. It's kindof disgusting considering
| how many uninvolved bystanders turn into "collateral damage"
| in these situations.
| pelasaco wrote:
| > I don't know what else could be reasonably expected from US
| by all the other ME countries.
|
| Beside leaving them alone and let them live in peace without
| American influence? Hm hard to say.
| jariel wrote:
| "Beside leaving them alone and let them live in peace
| without American influence?"
|
| Iran has no intentions of 'living in peace' and that's the
| whole point.
|
| They are concerned with overthrowing House of Saud,
| controlling Yemen and Bahrain, antagonizing/surrounding
| Israel, being a controlling force in Syria and Lebanon, and
| of course, making Iraq a vassal state and controlling the
| Gulf.
|
| That's just for starters.
|
| The world would be delighted for Iran to get along with
| it's neighbours, after all, nobody is powerful enough to do
| them material harm anyhow.
| pelasaco wrote:
| So you are saying that US don't want competition in the
| region? Because what you described: "Control of Yemen and
| Bahrain, being a controlling force in Syria and Lebanon
| and making Iraq a Vassal state and controlling the Gulf"
| is exactly what US is trying to do since years in the
| region, no?
| jariel wrote:
| No.
|
| The only special interest the US has is to hold the House
| of Saud stable so their Oil can be sold freely on global
| markets.
|
| Other than that, they just want stability, as does
| everyone.
|
| The US wouldn't even need to have ships in the Gulf if it
| were not for Iran. The 5th fleet is there to protect
| cargo from Iranian aggression.
|
| Particularly between Egypt and Israel both for the
| defence of Israel and of course, that the Suez Canal
| stays open (open to everyone, by the way).
|
| The US did not have anything other than a basic presence
| over there (5th Fleet in the Gulf) before 9/11 and that
| was after a major war in Iraq.
|
| The US wants to take a 'hard position' in the ME about as
| they want to in South Asia. Or South America. Or Western
| Europe i.e. they don't. They don't really even want to be
| there.
|
| Iran is super chauvinist antagonizing state - they don't
| simply want to 'live in peace' with their neighbours, far
| from it, they want to be the 'regional superpower' and
| take their historic position as dominating the Arabs, who
| they hate.
|
| Right now, the Arab/Persian hate war is much worse than
| the traditional Muslim/Jewish hate war and it's causing
| problems.
|
| The bulk of instability in the Middle East right now can
| be traced to Iran.
|
| If Iran would just shut up and stay home, then there'd be
| some mopping up in Syria, Yemen might very well stabilize
| and then there would be peace in the ME like there has
| not been in centuries.
|
| To see Saudi Arabia, UAE and Israel getting along like
| buddies is basically shocking to everyone who remembers
| how bad it was, and they are 'besties' specifically
| because the mutual threat they face in Iran.
| pelasaco wrote:
| So, you are kind of being cynical or very simplistic in
| your answer.
|
| The fact is: regional superpower cannot compete with the
| world superpower, right? The Saudis have always seen
| themselves as the exclusive outside power in Yemen, for
| example. They called US when when Iranian-backed Houthi
| rebels marched on Yemen's capital city and overthrew the
| transitional government that came into power during the
| Arab Spring of 2011. So it's not just about Iran, but to
| assure the geopolitical control in the region (through
| Allies and Proxy wars), control the global price of Oil,
| and to avoid that - in case of War - nobody does to US,
| what US did to Japan in the WWII (stop fuel provision)
|
| The new episode from "Intelligence Matters"[1] talks a
| lot of about that. It's not just because of Iran.
|
| Reference:
| https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/american-
| withdrawal-in...
| golergka wrote:
| That's not what most of the surrounding countries want.
| Almost all of the Iran's neighbours actively work to keep
| US pressure on it.
| pelasaco wrote:
| Israel and Saudi Arabia aren't the most of surrounding
| countries. Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Lebanon..
| they all are either pro Iran or "Neutral".
| nickik wrote:
| Enemies of Iran want the US tax payers to fund their own
| political project so they can spend their money on Swiss
| watches, German cars, American technology and imported
| woman from all over the world? Shocking that this would
| be the case.
|
| Your statement is also not actually correct. And in so
| far it is correct, part of is that if they wouldn't
| support it, the US would consider them enemies as well.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > leaving them alone
|
| That is not possible when Iran threatens our allies and
| provides material support to organizations with the stated
| goal of causing mayhem to Americans and their allies.
|
| Let's be realistic: Iran and America are enemies. Keep that
| in mind when offering solutions.
| pelasaco wrote:
| Iran and America aren't enemies. Actually if you read the
| History from the relationship between both countries, you
| will see that Iran was always a strategic geopolitics
| partner from USA. Our "allies" aka Israel is totally
| capable to deal with the issue diplomatically, without
| any American interference. At the same time, without
| American interference in Europe, it would force Germany
| to diplomatically solve any pending issue with Russia
| too..
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > read the History
|
| Today we are enemies. It was different when the Shah was
| in power. I'm not talking about History. I'm talking
| about now.
| nickik wrote:
| The reality is that the US does about a 1000x more to
| hurt Iran then the other way around.
|
| Iran threatens your 'allies' in a minimal way as they
| have basically no real military. Iran supports material
| support to some organizations that the US but mostly its
| allies don't like. The US supports about 100x more people
| Iran doesn't like and are just as hostile to Iran as
| Iranian allies are to the US.
|
| And this is outside of arguments if the US should even be
| such strong allies with Saudi and co (including Israel).
|
| And to simply say 'we are enemies therefore we can no
| change policy' is idiotic. The US and the Soviet Union
| were enemies, until in series of diplomatic talks many of
| the issues were resolved. The same goes for China.
|
| The US has totally fucked up its relationship with Iran
| and its broader middle east politics in the last 50 years
| that is is hard to even comprehend the amount of utter
| and complete stupidity that went on.
|
| Unfortunately HN post are not conductive to explaining
| all these issues. What I will point out is that we have
| lots of evidence from Political Science that sanctions
| are not effective to achieving political goals. We also
| have very good knowledge that the sanctions are not
| actually effective at what they are targeting.
|
| Neither the missile sanctions nor the nuclear sanctions
| have actually achieved their goals. Democrats will of
| course argue that Obama nuclear sanctions were effective
| at 'forcing Iran to the table' but this is basically just
| putting on rose colored glasses if you actually
| understand the negotiations. Iran actually forced the US
| to give up on its some of its central demand, since
| despite sanctions the Iranian nuclear enrichment program
| (note, not weapons program) was not slowed down (in fact
| it went faster).
|
| And what is even worse is that the US spent all this
| massive amount of effort on preventing Iran from doing
| and having all these things, while the US completely
| ignored things other nations did that are 100x worse
| violations. Israels nuclear nuclear weapons program,
| Pakistans nuclear weapons program, Saudi ICBMs are all
| far more dangerous then anything Iran had or was even
| aiming for and yet the US didn't lift a finger or in some
| cases closed it eyes to it.
|
| All of UAE, Saudi, Qatar (and arguably Israel as well)
| support groups that are far worse and ideologically more
| opposed to what the US stands for compared to the groups
| Iran allies with. Yet, those are allies and not enemies.
|
| Not trying to destroy the live of avg Iranians with
| sanctions and 'leaving them alone' is actually very
| reasonable and would help both the US, Iran and the
| middle east in general. That does not mean you can not
| still be opposed to each other on major issues.
| manfredo wrote:
| The sanctions are meant to put pressure on Iran to stop
| development of nuclear weapons. A regime change is not a likely
| consequence of sanctions, it's much more likely that the
| Iranian government looks at the economic toll of it's choice to
| pursue nuclear weapons development and decides to change
| course. Without a doubt these sanctions cause much misery - the
| bulk of it inflicted on everyday people who are not decision
| makers in the country. But allowing a country that regularly
| threatens to wipe other countries off the map to develop
| nuclear weapons stands to create orders of magnitude more
| misery than economic sanctions.
| bloak wrote:
| The goal of US foreign policy is world domination. The
| sanctions on Iran may well contribute to that goal. However,
| from the point of view of what's good for mankind generally
| I'm not sure it wouldn't be a good thing for Iran to have
| nuclear weapons. It would discourage other countries from
| attacking Iran and it would also give other countries an
| incentive not to destabilise Iran. There would, of course, be
| some obvious disadvantages - so it's not an easy
| (hypothetical) decision - but Iran would probably be a safer
| and better custodian of nuclear weapons than at least one
| other country that already has them so I certainly don't
| think it would be a terribly bad thing for Iran to join the
| club.
| fit2rule wrote:
| If Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons, I don't see
| any reason why Iran should be denied them.
|
| MAD works at all scales. Right now, it is Israel holding
| the nuclear threat over the ME, and we have seen time and
| again how little Israel cares for human life.
| austincheney wrote:
| The goal of US foreign policy is defense in depth via
| diplomacy and alliances, which hasn't significantly changed
| in the past 100 years.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth
| macspoofing wrote:
| >The goal of US foreign policy is world domination.
|
| US is a global superpower and they are the creators of the
| modern global order of free trade and democracy (it isn't a
| coincidence that there has been meteoric rise in the number
| of democracies since WW2, and end of Cold War). If that's
| 'world domination' then OK. But to be clear, if it wasn't
| them, another global superpower would fill the vacuum. In
| the 20th century, that would have been the Soviets. In the
| 21st, it may be China. Is that better?
| dvdhnt wrote:
| When has that worked? The same countries have been sanctioned
| over and over without successfully alleviating tense
| relations.
|
| Why would a government who doesn't care about its population
| look at the suffering of those people and change course? Are
| we naive enough to believe that the Iranian elite aren't
| circumventing these sanctions personally?
|
| Finally, why? Like, after hundreds of years of imperialism
| and political interference, I've yet to hear a compelling
| case to continue doing these things given they've done
| nothing but push us further away from each other and closer
| to a climate-crisis, dystopian nightmare.
|
| We need cooperation not blackmail.
| manfredo wrote:
| South Africa, among others, have had large changes in
| direction prompted through sanctions. Cuba has also
| gradually allowed more economic freedom over the past
| decade.
|
| I agree, cooperation is what is needed not blackmail.
| That's what the sanctions are doing: if Iran wants to
| cooperate economically with other countries, it needs to
| stop trying to blackmail other countries with threats of
| nuclear strikes.
|
| As far as why, Iran regularly threatens to wipe other
| Middle Eastern countries off the map - including the
| nuclear armed Israel, which would easily trigger a nuclear
| war in the middle east. The simple reality is that there is
| not an equivalency between the possession of nuclear
| weapons by China, Russia, NATO, versus North Korea and
| Iran. The former don't go around threatening to wipe other
| countries off the map on a regular basis. Nor does Israel,
| they don't even officially acknowledge nuclear capacities.
| The latter do, and in North Korea's case it has created one
| of the most infamous geopolitical catastrophes of the 20th
| century. And Iran stands to become a much larger North
| Korea in a much more volatile part of the world.
| publicola1990 wrote:
| Israel does go around bombing things in other countries.
| manfredo wrote:
| A couple strikes per month [1] in response to Syrian
| missile batteries shooting down Israeli planes is not
| particularly comparable with threatening to wipe a
| country off the map. Most of these aren't even direct
| attacks, Iranians are killed in the crossfire because
| they're supporting proxy fighters in Syria.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_conf
| lict_d...
| Daho0n wrote:
| You cannot seriously not add attacks on Palestinians. It
| would be a country too if it weren't occupied and crushed
| completely. More and more acknowledge this every year.
|
| Then there's all the hits on people by Mossad.
| fortran77 wrote:
| You're the one who's a non-serious troll.
| dotancohen wrote:
| As do China, Russia, and NATO. Why single out Israel?
| core-questions wrote:
| America does not pay for China and Russia's bombs, at the
| very least; but something tells me you already knew that.
| joelbluminator wrote:
| America bombed the crap out of many countries throughout
| history. I mean wtf was Vietnam all about? Iraq didn't
| look that good either.
| core-questions wrote:
| Cool, yeah, more bad stuff. Doesn't cancel out what I was
| talking about at all - this is just a standard
| "whataboutism". I'd like to see an end to all bombing
| everywhere. It's easier as a Canadian to hold this
| perspective, of course; I don't have to condone or defend
| the past evils of America at all.
| wazoox wrote:
| There was a deal, it was working, and the US (well, Trump)
| unilaterally broke out of it (as usual). Your lame excuses
| really are disgusting.
| emilsedgh wrote:
| I personally full supported Obama's sanctions on Iran. They
| had a purpose (Stop Iran's nuclear program) that made sense
| and was achievable.
|
| And they achieved it. All European countries and united
| nations and Obama administration confirmed that Iran was
| committed to the nuclear deal.Even current and former Israel
| generals wrote letters to show support for Obama's deal with
| Iran which stopped Iranian nuclear program.
|
| What the current administration wants is much much more than
| nuclear concerns [0]. They are basically telling the Islamic
| Republic to shoot itself in the head. Or face sanctions.
|
| Of course they pick sanctions.
|
| [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/5/21/mike-pompeo-
| speech-...
| yyyk wrote:
| The problem is the cost of the deal is too high and the
| benefit too low.
|
| The Iran deal is actually rather simple in concept. Iran
| _temporarily_ suspends certain nuclear activities (not all
| of them - for example, researching enrichment is fine). In
| return, Iran gets an economic boost and a permit to do
| whatever it wants, like supporting terrorists or mass
| murdering Syrians or trying to destroy Israel.
|
| The latter part may surprise you, but it's obvious when one
| thinks about it. What is the West allowed to do when Iran
| commits those things? It's not economic sanctions, since
| removing sanctions and then placing them on again for
| different reasons would leave Iran no reason to comply with
| the nuclear deal. And of course, war is undesireable (the
| entire point of the deal was to avoid war). So Iran can do
| whatever, and if the West does anything serious, well,
| nukes.
|
| The rest of the ME isn't going to meekly submit to Iran.
| Worse, Iran can't finance its holdings (Iran requires weak
| governments in order to hold Iraq and Lebanon, but that
| means no investments). That means things get done in the ME
| way, which already leads to mass amounts of refugees.
|
| Iran's involvement in Syria directly led to Brexit (Leave
| would have lost without an immigration crisis on) and
| played a key role in Trump getting elected (Is it a
| surprise the most anti-immigration R candidate won the
| primary given that background? Didn't Trump end up hiring
| Cambridge Analytica, which would have never happened absent
| Brexit?). If it weren't for the deal, maybe the US would
| have done something about Syria and we'd have avoided all
| that. If Iranian destablization of ME restarts under Biden,
| the result may well be Trump mk2.
|
| I do not believe this is an acceptable price for
| _temporary_ restrictions.
| softwhale wrote:
| > Iran's involvement in Syria directly led to Brexit
|
| It's appalling how you (even partially(?)) blame Iran for
| Brexit. The US decided to support Syrian rebels (of whom
| mostly turned out to become or move to ISIS). Syria is a
| secular state, whether you like to believe this or not.
| The Russians and Iranians were legitimately asked by its
| officials to help support the Syrian army to tackle the
| terrorists. Yet, the US and its allies financed/armed so
| called rebels that made a disaster of the country.
| Remember McCain's visits and photographs back in 2011?
| Why is the US even STILL there?! I can not think of a
| single country in the ME that turned out to become better
| after the US started meddling in its elections/government
| - ironically, including the one which you are currently
| blaming.
|
| Blame the incompetence of Brexit on the people who
| advocated for it and who like to ignore/dismiss facts.
| yyyk wrote:
| Assad runs a mass-scale torture state. Iran supported
| Assad from the beginning, without it he wouldn't have
| survived to 2015. The result of Assad's butchery is a
| mass displacement of Syrians, ergo refugee crisis, ergo
| Leave victory in Brexit referendum.
|
| If the US was ever serious about not letting Assad and
| Iran get away with it all that wouldn't have happened,
| and there wouldn't have been Brexit. The US's decision to
| not get involved against Assad (they're there for ISIS I
| remind you) had a far worse result in human lives and
| geopolitical impact than any of the US's 'meddling'.
| softwhale wrote:
| > The US's decision to not get involved against Assad
| (they're there for ISIS I remind you)
|
| So is Iran? Mind you: the weapons these rebels aka ISIS
| had were mostly/directly provided by the US and its
| allies! No official from Syria asked the US to be there!
| Imagine if Iran would deploy troops tomorrow in
| Washington to endorse groups to tackle the existing
| government. The real danger is supporting regimes that
| endorse Salafist/Wahabist Islam, which the West likes to
| do. This hypocrisy of the West is fascinating. I think
| that could have somehow played a role in Brexit...
| yyyk wrote:
| Iran supported Assad since before ISIS existed. In fact
| their operations were almost all directed against the
| rebels but never against ISIS.
|
| Iran supports Assad for a link with Lebanon and
| threatening Israel, and if a lot of Sunnis are forced by
| Assad to migrate, well, that's more like a bonus for
| them, since it destablizes the West.
| manfredo wrote:
| Can you elaborate on how this amounts to telling Iran to
| "shoot itself in the head"? The 12 demands as per your
| article are:
|
| > Declare to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
| a full account of the prior military dimensions of its
| nuclear programme and permanently and verifiably abandon
| such work in perpetuity.
|
| > Stop enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing,
| including closing its heavy water reactor.
|
| > Provide the IAEA with unqualified access to all sites
| throughout the entire country.
|
| > End its proliferation of ballistic missiles and halt
| further launching or development of nuclear-capable missile
| systems.
|
| > Release all US citizens as well as citizens of US
| partners and allies.
|
| > End support to Middle East "terrorist" groups, including
| Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
|
| > Respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi government and
| permit the disarming, demobilisation and reintegration of
| Shia militias.
|
| > End its military support for the Houthi rebels and work
| towards a peaceful, political settlement in Yemen.
|
| > Withdraw all forces under Iran's command throughout the
| entirety of Syria.
|
| > End support for the Taliban and other "terrorists" in
| Afghanistan and the region and cease harbouring senior al-
| Qaeda leaders.
|
| > End the Islamic Revolutionary Guard corps-linked Quds
| Force's support for "terrorists" and "militant" partners
| around the world.
|
| > End its threatening behaviour against its neighbours,
| many of whom are US allies, including its threats to
| destroy Israel and its firing of missiles at Saudi Arabia
| and the United Arab Emirates, and threats to international
| shipping and destructive cyberattacks.
|
| This really amounts to 3 things:
|
| 1. Stop pursuing nuclear weapons development, and actually
| give inspectors the ability to verify that Iran is staying
| true to it's word.
|
| 2. Stop supporting terrorist organizations, and other proxy
| wars.
|
| 3. Stop threatening to destroy Saudi Arabia, Israel, and
| other countries.
|
| Sure, demanding the release of US citizens is superfluous
| and unnecessary. But how does this amount to telling Iran
| to "shoot itself in the head"? How would fulfilling these
| 12 points kill Iran? How does Iran somehow end up dying if
| it stops fighting proxy wars in Yemen and Iraq?
| Daho0n wrote:
| How do you stop sanctions if you already follow the
| demands put in front of you? The reason the world isn't
| on the US side against Iran wholly as it were in the
| beginning of the sanctions is that Iran _did_ live up to
| the demands.... and then the demands were changed. The US
| broke the deal, not the Iranians.
| manfredo wrote:
| You stop the sanctions by meeting the new demands. The US
| decided the original deal did not offer inspectors enough
| leeway to ensure Iran was actually halting nuclear
| weapons development, and so it added more stringent
| inspection requirements. Adopting or walking away from a
| deal is a mutual decision. Yes, the US decided to put new
| terms on the deal. Iran could have accepted adding real
| enforcement mechanisms to the deal and ended the
| sanctions, but decided otherwise.
|
| This thread is being rate limited. The commenter below is
| incorrect. The post deal demands included restrictions on
| nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, too, but they also
| included changes to increase the access of inspectors.
| This was a substantial part of why the original deal was
| rejected, the new administration believed the original
| restricted inspectors to the extent that Iran could still
| develop nuclear weapons in secrecy.
| emilsedgh wrote:
| United States' post-deal demands were not nuclear. They
| were regarding Iran's missile program.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| The existing deal already has enforcement mechanisms
| under Article 37. If Iran violates the deal, the UNSC
| sanctions are reinstated by the P5+1. If the P5+1 violate
| the deal, Iran scales back its own commitments. All of
| this is in the existing treaty.
|
| And there is no guarantee that meeting the new demands
| would result in sanctions stopping, rather than in more
| sanctions and demands.
| golemiprague wrote:
| The sanctions are not to prevent nuclear development, the
| Israelis are not stupid and they know Iran can develop it
| sanctions or not, it will be dealt with a cold war
| strategies as it always was.
|
| The sanctions are to weaken its non nuclear aspirations,
| their push to create an Iranian crescent from Iran to
| Lebanon making many people life miserable on the way,
| people who don't want them in the region.
|
| It's a country that clearly state their will to destroy
| Israel and their militias in Lebanon actively attacked
| Israel even though there is no border conflict there right
| now and the two countries could set up a peace agreement
| easily. But it is not only the Israelis that don't want
| them there, the majority Sunni and Christians in Syria,
| Lebanon and Iraq also not happy with the Iranian push,
| hence the joy everybody had when Trump killed Sulemeini.
|
| Obama was an idiot who bought into the meme of "preventing
| nuclear", he didn't understand the middle east at all and
| during his time the middle east was in flames with millions
| of deaths and refugees. He didn't support the
| demonstrations in Iran when they happened, just stood there
| looking like a the lame useless president that he was with
| his useless speeches.
|
| Trump brought quiet and peace and he did it with almost no
| cost of life, just by having a knack to dealing with crazy
| leaders of the region which is more aligned with his
| natural craziness and line of thinking, and with a bit of
| Kushner brilliance behind the scenes.
|
| I just hope Biden is not as stupid as Obama and will keep
| the pressure on Iran, got a feeling he is a bit more
| experienced and realist so I am hopeful he will understand
| what's going on.
| macspoofing wrote:
| Iran does not need to develop nuclear weapons, nor fund
| regional militant and terrorist groups .. but they do. I wish
| the Iranian government would choose to be a good citizen of the
| region and the world, for the sake of their people.
|
| Ever since the revolution they took a purposefully antagonistic
| stance towards the US for their own ideological reasons. The
| sad reality (for Iran) is that the present global order has
| been created and maintained by US - so if you can't get along
| with US, you are going to be a pariah. Many non-democratic
| nations can get along with US just fine - why can't Iran?
| jhpriestley wrote:
| Yes, why won't Iran simply disarm under US pressure, like
| Gaddafi and Saddam did?
| macspoofing wrote:
| How well is Iran's current strategy of being a regional and
| global pariah working out?
|
| Without excusing the actions of US, could you honestly say
| that the present circumstances Iran finds themselves in is
| not a result of their decisions and choices since the
| revolution? And like I said, it isn't even about regime
| change. US is friendly with plenty of non-democratic
| regimes, even ones they were at war with (like Vietnam). On
| the other side, nations that set an explicit policy of
| antagonism, like Cuba, North Korea and Iran, tend to not
| fare well. There's a lesson in there somewhere.
| jhpriestley wrote:
| Iran's, and North Korea's, strategies are working out
| pretty well for the people making those decisions.
| Khamenei, like Kim Jong-Il, looks set to die of natural
| causes at an advanced age.
|
| The people of Iran and North Korea are not doing so well.
| But if you were an Iranian citizen hoping for a better
| future, would you really pin your hopes on a US-backed
| regime change, after seeing the aftermath of Iraq,
| Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria?
| macspoofing wrote:
| >Iran's, and North Korea's, strategies are working out
| pretty well for the people making those decisions...The
| people of Iran and North Korea are not doing so well.
|
| So your contention is that nation-states shouldn't
| interact with each other at the nation-state level? That
| is, if a nation-state proceeds with antagonistic
| policies, like funding regional militant and terrorist
| groups against your allies, you cannot hold that nation-
| state to account lest it hurt their populations? This is
| not an easy ethical question. At the nation-state level
| there is no rule of law, it is anarchy. It seems like
| there may be 'international law' in the modern world, but
| that's only for those that live within the sphere of
| influence of the relevant superpower who can enforce it
| (USA plays that role in much of the globe, soon to be
| replaced wholly or in part by Chinese influence).
|
| Policies like sanctions have many goals. In the specific
| case of Iran, sanctions have a goal of curbing Iranian
| regional antagonism and not necessarily regime change
| (we're much too cynical for that).
|
| >But if you were an Iranian citizen hoping for a better
| future, would you really pin your hopes on a US-backed
| regime change
|
| There is no easy answer. Ultimately, it is the Iranian
| government that is responsible for the well-being of
| their citizens. Their citizens could have their lives
| drastically improved TODAY if their governments chose to
| do so. I don't know why you put that responsibility on
| the US because US cannot do this job. US needs to balance
| the well-being of their people as well as the well-being
| of the people of their regional allies as well, in
| addition to basic rights of all humans.
|
| I posed a question to you in my previous message and you
| refused to answer it. But I'll rephrase: Why do you bend
| over backwards to remove all agency from Iranian
| government for actions they chose to get themselves and
| the people they are responsible for, into the present
| situation. This includes their absolute refusal for
| making decisions that would get them to stop being a
| regional and global pariah.
| AndyMcConachie wrote:
| I see no reason to believe that US sanctions on Iran are
| intended to cause a revolt by the Iranian people. AFAIK, the US
| has imposed sanctions on numerous countries since WWII and not
| in a single instance has it lead to a revolution in America's
| favour.
|
| Another possibility is that the US simply wants to isolate its
| geopolitical enemies and impoverish them. As it has been doing
| with Cuba since Batista was overthrown.
|
| I'm not convinced US foreign policy were rational, but a
| possible rational explanation for US sanctions is to make an
| example of countries that refuse US dominance. Similar to how a
| gang running a protection racket punishes those who refuse to
| pay protection money.
|
| Regardless of _why_ US foreign policy has deemed it necessary
| to starve the Iranian people, it will not lead to a revolution
| in America 's favour. The Shah is not coming back. It will just
| lead to more death of Iranians.
| millzlane wrote:
| I know I'm out of my league here, but it seems to me like a
| good thing that we sanction countries would would hand out a
| 10+ year jail sentence to a instagrammer for showcasing their
| hobby?
| Daho0n wrote:
| You should get off your high horse and do some light
| reading about things like "Three strikes and you're out"
| and "The new Jim crow". The US is absolutely not any
| better. 2+ million people in jail for profit.
| drstewart wrote:
| Let Iran sanction the US then.
| emilsedgh wrote:
| 1. The regime wouldn't be this inclined to go after it's
| own people have they not been under this much pressure.
|
| 2. The people "really" punished are the same normal people.
| They are punished once by US economically and once punished
| by the regime morally/politically.
| jariel wrote:
| "the US has imposed sanctions on numerous countries since
| WWII and not in a single instance has it lead to a revolution
| in America's favour."
|
| ? US sanctions against Iran actually did lead to a 'win' for
| the US in the first round.
|
| It's the expansion of those sanctions that has caused
| problems.
|
| Sanctions on Russia have definitely had an effect [1]. It's
| hard to say exactly, only Putin knows, it's not like he'd
| admit it, but there's no doubt it affects his calculus.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_dur
| ing...
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| Are US sanctions on Cuba really intended to impoverish Cuba?
| I would think not, because Canada, the EU and other developed
| countries continue to trade with Cuba (and send holidaymakers
| there) and it has been decades since the US tried to put any
| real pressure on its allies to isolate Cuba.
|
| Rather, I would suspect that the real aim of America's Cuba
| policy is to appeal to the Cuban-exile demographic, which has
| a powerful lobby and can deliver votes to politicians in
| favor of the status quo.
| ProAm wrote:
| > Please, as a U.S. voter, I urge you to consider your support
| for stopping the sanctions.
|
| The US currently has a largely non-functioning government.
| Voting enacts little, if any, change. The two-party system
| currently in place has such ingrained lockstep change won't
| happen because everyone is worried about not getting re-elected
| or seeing diversity of opinion.
| nickik wrote:
| Unfortunately both parties on this are horribly bad. The
| Democrats just as bad as the Republicans. In their seal to
| not seem weak against the Republicans they have accepted the
| basic premises this foreign policy was developed.
|
| Unlike Saudi, Qatar, Israel, UAE and others Iran has no lobby
| in the US. Because there is are no commercial ties, US
| buissness don't have existing relationships with Iran
| anymore.
|
| While US companies like Boeing certainty would like to
| establish such commercial relation with Iran. Their far
| bigger intensive is to continue to support the Saudi/Israel
| vs Iran conflict and to sell massive amounts of weapons both
| to the US government and the governments of Saudi/Israel and
| allies.
|
| Since there are no large factor to push the US a different
| direction the status quo has basically been established in
| the post 1979 world and things only changed minimally.
|
| There is not genuine democratic support for these changes,
| mostly because most people simply have no idea of middle east
| politics and don't know the difference between Iran and Iraq
| or anything like that.
|
| There is a broad based anti-war movement from both the left
| and the right, but it has very little politician influence
| outside of the presidential elections. In the presidential
| elections generally the more anti-war presidents wins, but
| usually once in office, everybody around is not of that
| opinion. In congress election foreign policy is usually not
| important enough of a factor.
|
| Just considering that it was most Saudi bombers at the WW2
| and the waste majority of issues and terror bombings have
| been by Sunnis has not changed the US political output in the
| least. Despite Iran actually reaching out to the US post-911
| (threw the Swiss Embassy) putting a lot of issues up for
| debate but Bush categorically refused to even consider any
| engagement.
|
| Its really hard to see what strategically could change so
| this policy direction could change anytime soon.
| tikwidd wrote:
| You're replying to a post describing the terrible effects of
| US sanctions on Iran. Imagine if you were living under those
| conditions, and person from the country enforcing the
| sanctions responded that there's nothing they can do because
| their two party democracy makes it too hard to change
| anything?
|
| This is not the right place to complain about political
| gridlock in the US.
| nickik wrote:
| Why? If a person from Iran comments and says, I don't
| actually want to destroy the US but I can't really change
| it because XYZ.
|
| Granted the post is a bit thin and doesn't go beyond the
| surface level of the issue, but its is relevant information
| for an outsider.
|
| Given this is the US we are talking about most people
| probably know about the two party system and so on, but
| foreign relations is a special case even within that. My
| responds provides some more context to the problem pointed
| out.
| ProAm wrote:
| Of course it's horrendous and completely disheartening but
| it does not make it not true, and I think it's important to
| inform that the answer is not 'voting'. Voting does nothing
| with a non-functioning government.
| secondcoming wrote:
| All this will lead to is Iran developing guided missile software
| written in Rust. These missiles will thus have no known
| countermeasures.
| tbodt wrote:
| Announced only 4 hours after responding to
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25644056? That can't be a
| coincidence.
| manacit wrote:
| I don't think GitHub successfully convinced OFAC to allow them
| to offer services in Iran in the intervening four hours between
| then and now.
| tbodt wrote:
| Probably not. But the timing is strange to me
| vonmoltke wrote:
| If there's anything to the timing, I think it's on the OFAC
| side, not the GitHub side. I doubt the OFAC would fast
| track this just because of a Twitter controversy, though,
| so it's probably just a coincidence.
| jcrubino wrote:
| "Strategery"
|
| If the current military gulf presence escalates to armed
| conflict having software open to the Iranian population
| keeps communication tools available until the internet
| gets cut.
| atonse wrote:
| My guess would be that they probably got it a little while
| back and kind of forgot about it, but this brought it back
| on everyone's radar and was an easy win.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Some sense from the govt agency for a change, it is not as if the
| IRGC hosts their missile and nuclear programs on Github.
| diegoeche wrote:
| This is the kind of activism that I do see valuable form GH.
| Where there are actual costs and not just catering to a small
| minority.
| FiredoxSuck wrote:
| Oh how wonderful.. I would like too Microsoft showing more marina
| abramovich art with blood, siemen, shit and milk.. Oh yes!! Go
| Microsoft go!
| dang wrote:
| Creating accounts to post like this will get your main account
| banned on HN, so please don't do that.
| S_A_P wrote:
| Im not saying that this is not true(seriously no snark here at
| all) but its weird how things like this come together on the
| internet some times. Even on Hacker news, it seems that there
| have been times that topics bubble up from multiple sources. In
| the abstract it can seem rigged.
| [deleted]
| ryukafalz wrote:
| When someone sees a post that relates to something else they
| know about, they're likely to post that too. No rigging
| required, just people being social as people do. :)
| dang wrote:
| (We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25648849.)
| yreg wrote:
| Isn't this Baader-Meinhof phenomenon[0]? You learn about (or
| give a good think to) something and then you start noticing it
| everywhere.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion
| Normal_gaussian wrote:
| I don't think so
|
| In the general case, maybe a little bit, but mostly not. In
| the specific case, not.
|
| Baader-Meinhof is about an illusion of high frequency. This
| specific case (iran + github) is direct coincidence. The
| general case of the poster above (topics bubble up from
| multiple sources) is not, because topics can be demonstrated
| to follow patterns of relatedness (there is a term that I
| forget) and :. the frequency is not illusionary.
|
| Of course, that supposes the pattern noticed is the pattern
| that was genuinely in the articles. Baader-Meinhof will apply
| to anything the user misidentifies. I presume that the direct
| links between groups of articles (ie, the ones that caused
| them to be written or posted) are much more prominent than
| the "background" noise of links that the user will Baader-
| Meinhof.
| mattm wrote:
| We've seen something similar at work where 2 or 3 people will
| come across an obscure bug in our code all in the same week.
| When looking into the root cause it turned out that the bug was
| created 18 months ago. So for 18 months it went unnoticed and
| then multiple people come across it pretty much at the same
| time. This has happened a few times and the people who found
| the bug were working on different things so it's not like they
| find it because they're working in the same area.
| epilys wrote:
| There's so many things going on all the time, that there not
| being any coincidence of any kind is less probable than these
| kinds of coincidences examined individually. The world's a
| great and bizarre place.
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| I recently corrected a misspelling of Nicolas Cages' birth
| name in the German wikipedia that had been there for 15
| years. I could not find a single German-language source for
| correct spelling, because they all copied the error from
| either Wikipedia or each other.
|
| Then, I discovered the issue being mentioned on the
| discussion page two weeks earlier and never before.
| ineedasername wrote:
| That's an excellent example of XKCD's citogenesis:
| https://xkcd.com/978/
| algorithm314 wrote:
| Probably they said to the US government. "What's the point of
| blocking iranian developers if we can look into their code?"
| toper-centage wrote:
| The cynic in me also thought this right away. Github is an
| American company, subject to American data request orders. Iran
| would be better off not using github for private repos.
| tehjoker wrote:
| Absolutely. The state department only relaxes a "maximum
| pressure" regime if they think there's some way to spy or
| sabotage their stated enemies. However, this could still be a
| good thing for the Iranian people if for no other reason that
| they can download free and open source software.
| pkaye wrote:
| I think downloaded public repos were never blocked.
| classified wrote:
| Twitter is becoming the outsourced helpdesk of those poor, shoddy
| transnational corporations. Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc are too
| poor and incompetent to run a helpdesk that could actually help
| anybody, but Twitter can. They should raise a fee from those
| companies for their services.
| Blikkentrekker wrote:
| I'm not impressed with the self-fellatio of how it should be
| accessible to all.
|
| _GitHub_ still denies access to those under 13 to comply with
| laws.
|
| I understand that it has to comply with laws, but it should
| nevertheless raise the issue and take a stance of disagreement
| with the law, if it truly believe that all developers should be
| able to contribute.
|
| But that that which is touted as a "universal right" excludes the
| young, is of course nothing new.
| rootsudo wrote:
| I wonder what this means for sanctions/US GOV action.
|
| "Oh, we need to know all the programmers that reside in Iran."
|
| "Let's look at github!"
|
| Or Maybe it's as insidious as hoping some state orgs\Iran based
| enterprises would use github actively to host and commit code
| into their infrastructure.
|
| It reminds me when I first became aware of how social media
| companies allow "terrorist" pages up - while there is some chance
| of recruitment, the intelligence gathered from metadata, who
| browses, time of engagement and such is much, much more valuable.
|
| Super curious, and interesting, how "nice/good" gestures can be
| all part of a game.
| grishka wrote:
| I just wish US stopped acting as if it owns the entire damn
| planet.
| itisit wrote:
| And I just wish Iran would stop enriching uranium.
| slezyr wrote:
| GitHub isn't required to work from the US and can choose any
| other country.
| hit8run wrote:
| Am I naive to still hope for more peace in the world?
| Establishing an inclusive developer community around the globe
| feels like a step into the right direction bringing developers
| closer together. I imagine Being the CEO of an american high-tech
| company nowadays is also politically no easy task cause you get
| bound to a lot of restraints. Anyways. Congratulations Nat for
| the effort you put in and your willingness to improve a little
| part of the world.
| AsyncAwait wrote:
| > Am I naive to still hope for more peace in the world?
|
| Worth noting that this is entirely the U.S. not wanting peace,
| not Iran, hence the EU disagrees with the sanctions regime.
| Siira wrote:
| As an Iranian, you're quite uninformed here. The Islamic
| Republic does a lot of small-scale aggression (e.g., they
| just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters), and they lead
| many proxy militias. They also pursue nuclear weapons. Their
| handling of domestic affairs is also bullshit (e.g., they
| lured Amadnews's reporter, Zam, to Iraq and then kidnapped
| and executed him.).
| swarnie_ wrote:
| > They also pursue nuclear weapons.
|
| I have zero problems with this.
|
| Why do America (The only country to actually use a nuke)
| get to decided who gets national security and who gets
| "freedom and democracy" delivered by a predator drone.
| a1369209993 wrote:
| > Why do America (The only country to actually use a
| nuke) get to decided who gets national security and who
| gets "freedom and democracy" delivered by a predator
| drone.
|
| I believe the moral principle you're looking for is "ad
| baculum".
| aborsy wrote:
| Korea blocked Iranian assets, fearing US sanctions. Iran
| was pissed off being robbed, and now confiscated a ship,
| basically asking Korea to pay its debt (at least through
| products).
|
| It's a tricky situation with both parties.
| nostrademons wrote:
| It's almost like the people of the world should unite in
| throwing out their leaders. Get rid of all the folks at the
| top that persist in bad behavior so the rest of us can code
| in peace.
|
| ...except it didn't really work all that well for the
| French in 1789, or the Chinese in 1911, or the Russians in
| 1917. Executing their corrupt leaders just led to _more_
| dictatorial ones taking their place. Maybe it 's more power
| corrupts than corrupt people seeking power.
| wincy wrote:
| After you eat the rich you don't eat.
| Medox wrote:
| It kind of worked for us Romanians after executing our
| dictator and his dimwit wife in '89, by scaring them into
| fleeing, then a fast capture, followed very quick -
| slightly unfair - trial and then firing squad, on
| Christmas Day of all days (and all these recorded).
|
| Of course, afterwards, the new elected president was a
| former communist party member who tricked everyone that
| he had changed, and of course his anti-west (and east)
| propaganda helped secure him his win (because "we should
| not listen to anybody anymore, so vote for me"), and of
| course, because of his win, the pseudo-communists still
| ruled/destroyed the country for the majority of the next
| 32 years but, anyway, I still say it was a win and I am
| very proud of our revolution.
|
| Sure, there are those who say that most people died in
| vein for the revolution but such transitions take a lot
| of time and it would have taken even more if we waited
| another 5-10-15 years. It did not help that we were right
| between east and west either.
|
| Now we celebrate 14 years of being in the E.U., which
| helped a lot, although we mismanaged tens of billions
| (sorry E.U.), while we are still many years away from
| managing so much money correctly and without illegal
| shenanigans... Also around 17 years in the NATO, which
| helped a lot I'd say (see our neighbor Ukraine for the
| contrary; Moldova is also behind us by some 15 years, at
| least).
|
| But, technologically, the new freedom brought us some
| very interesting 90's and 2000's, catapulting our
| internet speeds to number one (sometimes two) in Europe
| [1] due to our giant nation-wide interconnected LAN-party
| networks, fueled mainly by piracy (or lets call it
| "hunger for information and everything that we missed
| before"). But there is a long reddit post which explains
| those years much better: [2]. Today everybody and their
| parents have at least 100 Mbps. Our main ISP doesn't
| include a 100 Mbps plan anymore anyway. Only 300 Mbps up.
| Even my parents in a small poor city have fiber since 5
| years. Welcome to Romania.
|
| These generated a lot of English speaking young people,
| me included. Lots of us becoming very good at electronics
| or IT. Sadly, many self-educated IT engineers left for
| other countries. We even had a running joke (urban legend
| mainly) that the second language at Microsoft was
| Romanian, which of course is said by other countries too
| (e.g. India) but somehow everybody knows somebody at
| Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, etc. While many of us are still
| (thinking about) leaving, placing us 2nd after Syria when
| it comes to mass emigration, still... executing those two
| bastards was for the best.
|
| [1] https://i.redd.it/79y3efbig4551.png [2] https://np.re
| ddit.com/r/europe/comments/2ct58s/average_inter...
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| The proper way to evaluate how successful throwing out
| leaders is as a way towards peace is not to list cases
| you can think of where it failed, but to list every place
| leaders were thrown out with a goal of peace, and seeing
| how well that fared.
|
| Then to be really honest, see how well that fared against
| other options.
|
| Then you may reach a different, but demonstrably more
| accurate, conclusion.
| nostrademons wrote:
| I was curious about how this'd look without the cherry-
| picking, so I took a look at Wikipedia's list of
| revolutions from the 1900s on and sampled a few dozen:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_reb
| ell...
|
| Results from the period of 1900-1910 (19 revolutions; I
| don't have time to do more) is that 12 were outright
| failures: the revolution was crushed, the leaders
| executed, oftentimes with significant loss of life for
| the revolutionaries and nearby civilians. 5 were
| temporary successes: they led to some reforms or a new
| government, but the government collapsed within 15 years
| anyway, leading to either anarchy, dictatorship, or
| conquest by a foreign power. 2 were an "eventual success"
| (Young Turk revolution, and revolution in the Kingdom of
| Poland), where the revolution had modest success but
| later events achieved "peaceful" (if you can count WW1 &
| WW2 as peaceful) independence. 1 was a success, the
| Theriso Revolt that broke Crete away from the Ottoman
| empire and led to its eventual union with Greece.
|
| I'd come to a bleaker conclusion: most revolutions fail,
| and lead to the deaths of their leaders and most of the
| people who support them. Then of the subset that
| "succeed" (in the sense of not being crushed), a majority
| lead to government or lack thereof that is just as bad or
| worse than what came before.
| war1025 wrote:
| > Then you may reach a different, but demonstrably more
| accurate, conclusion.
|
| For that to have much weight, you'd need to list
| somewhere that a government overthrow actually went well.
| History suggests that it rarely ever does.
| newen wrote:
| Yep, cherry picking is the fallacy here for those
| interested.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| It didn't work well with the Iranians in 1977-1979
| either. Originally the overthrow of the Shah was
| supported by a wide variety of factions in society,
| including secular ones, and it may well have led to a
| secular country. But once there was a power vacuum,
| Khomeini returned from exile in France and managed to
| install the present Islamic republic.
|
| It sort of, kind of worked with Romania in 1989, though.
| But in spite of massive popular discontent with the
| dictator, the actual overthrow of Ceausescu was largely
| the regime's elites seeking to get rid of the boss so
| that they could rule the roost themselves. That Romania
| eventually became a democratic European nation feels like
| a happy accident.
| marczellm wrote:
| Are you Romanian? If you think Romania is or should be a
| democratic European nation, can you offer your
| perspective on what could stop the ongoing verbal, legal
| and sometimes physical harassment of the Hungarian
| minority? Some of which is described in the last
| paragraphs of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanianizati
| on#Recent_events
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| That Romania still struggles with a number of flaws -
| some a holdover from the socialist era, some new after
| '89 - is why I wrote "sort of, kind of". Still, even with
| the grievances of the Hungarian minority, it nevertheless
| became a multiparty system after violently overthrowing
| the old dictator instead of another single-party
| dictatorship.
|
| Unfortunately, in several European countries today ethnic
| minorities fail to get the recognition and treatment they
| seek, so Romania's actions towards the Hungarian minority
| don't hinder it from being called today a "modern
| European state" or whatever.
| noemotion wrote:
| I am Romanian. I don't think there is an "ongoing verbal,
| legal and sometimes physical harassment of the Hungarian
| minority". There were isolated conflicts, mainly
| artificially perpetuated by radicals for (pretty small)
| political gains. Also, the Hungarian minority political
| party (UDMR) is currently a part of the government
| coalition (not the first time it happens).
| [deleted]
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| Iran also assassinates its critics abroad, or kidnaps them
| for show trials (France, Germany, Italy and Austria have
| withdrawn from the Europe-Iran Business Forum over one of
| these cases). Iran funds Houthi rebels in Yemen to harass
| the Saudis and attack oil tankers in the Gulf with limpet
| mines; there was that rocket attack on the US embassy in
| Iraq... They're also making a big show about issuing
| INTERPOL warrants agains Donald Trump (futile, of course,
| but hardly a peace-seeking gesture.)
| AsyncAwait wrote:
| > Iran also assassinates its critics abroad, or kidnaps
| them for show trials
|
| Just like the KSA does, who are apparently fine with the
| U.S. It's almost as if it's not really about that.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| If you bring up Yemen and Saudi Arabia to make Iran look
| bad without mentioning the atrocities occurring in Yemen
| with the support of Saudi Arabia and the USA, I cannot
| take the rest of your comment seriously.
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| We are in a thread asserting that it's "worth noting that
| this is entirely the U.S. not wanting peace."
|
| I remind you to "Have curious conversation; don't cross-
| examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer,
| including at the rest of the community. Please respond to
| the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone
| says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume
| good faith."
| AsyncAwait wrote:
| > We are in a thread asserting that it's "worth noting
| that this is entirely the U.S. not wanting peace."
|
| In relation to the sanctions that were imposed as part of
| the U.S. pulling out of the nuclear deal despite Iran
| complying. But of course you left that part out.
| yyyk wrote:
| Weirdly, I tend to blame regimes shouting 'death to
| America' for bad relations with the US.
|
| Remember that the nuclear deal only dealt with nuclear
| matters* , all the other regime behaviours (hostage
| taking, supporting terrorists, missile development, etc.)
| remained. Stable relations between US and Iran are
| impossible without the regime changing its ways, the
| regime has no reason to change so long as the deal
| exists, ergo there won't be stable relations.
|
| * Even the nuclear terms expire in about a decade,
| leaving Iran free to do whatever. There used to be a
| similar deal with North Korea, and we saw how that ended
| up.
| potatoz2 wrote:
| I tend to look at actions, and the US (in particular the
| current administration) bears a large part of the blame.
| The Iranian government is despicable, but so is the one
| in Saudi Arabia, yet the US has no problem supporting
| them. The North Korean government is much worse, but the
| US negotiates with them. Historically, the US has had no
| qualms associating with authoritarian countries. There's
| no intrinsic "reason" for the poor relationship, except
| realpolitik balance of power.
| inamiyar wrote:
| Maybe the answer here shouldn't be reconcile with Iran,
| but stop supporting Saudi Arabia... (or so, didn't really
| think this one through)
| yyyk wrote:
| SA and NK are vile, but they are not revisionist powers
| like Iran. It's not a surprise the Iranian regime's
| attempts to expand its hold across the region would lead
| to opposition.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| When you omit relevant facts, your arguments are weaker.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Have you missed the multiple recent occasions where the
| US green-lit Moussad assassinating Iranians?
|
| We live in an Anocratic[1] world. You have to judge Iran
| in that context.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anocracy
| ircoder wrote:
| As an another Iranian I think you talk like a person who
| does not live and breathe the cruel sanctions where you can
| not even buy medicine. Get your facts straight. Show some
| solidarity.
|
| If those behaviors were the basis of sanctioning the
| nation, then every single nation should have been
| sanctioned. First and foremost the US.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "They also pursue nuclear weapons."
|
| That always feels strange to me, why this is considered
| evil. If there is a strong military might with nuclear
| weapons on your doorstep threatening you, then also going
| after nuclear weapons is just logic and self-preserving.
|
| (I mean, not that I want more idiots on this world having
| nuclear weapons)
|
| Evil is indeed all the other shit they are doing, but I am
| not sure if collective punishment helps with that. And
| collectivily banning any person from iran collaborating
| with the rest of the software world via Github is a very
| strong collective punishment, which I doubt would make me
| see the west in a nicer view, if I would be such a
| developer in Iran. (and never mind all those other bans,
| like money transfer). Maybe I would even feel a push to
| close ranks with the hardcore idiots who are in control.
| hulahoof wrote:
| I can understand not wanting more actors that can
| initiate MAD. I sure would feel safer if my country had
| nuclear weapons, but the risk of every sovereign being
| armed is too high.
| inamiyar wrote:
| It is also almost the anniversary of Iran shooting down and
| killing 176 Iranians/Iranian-Canadians, including people I
| know.[1] Iran is in its own right a regional imperialist,
| though it is nice to get some code interchange going. Me
| and my family no longer can go back to the country without
| risking imprisonment because of speaking out against the
| regime.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Ai
| rlines...
| dhbanes wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
| AsyncAwait wrote:
| It's worth noting that this was after the U.S. killed
| their top general illegally and they expected a strike on
| Iran after hitting some Iraqi bases in response to the
| U.S. assassination.
| Siira wrote:
| > they expected a strike on Iran
|
| So they made us, the civilians, their meat shield, just
| as they used us to clean minefields in the Iraq war. And
| then they were so incompetent they shot their own meat
| shield. After that, they launched massive media campaigns
| to say the plane had not been shot, but had crashed out
| of a "technical glitch." Even after the evidence became
| undeniable, and they issued public apologies, they still
| continued with their media campaigns, saying this was all
| because of a US cyber attack. And they did not let people
| organize proper funerals, and they imprisoned,
| threatened, and fucked the survivors' families, and they
| used tear gas and just straight opened fire when people
| protested at their sheer malicious incompetence, and ...
|
| And random assholes on the internet defend them while
| seemingly caring for the Iranian people. I don't know,
| perhaps you're one the of the thousands who directly or
| indirectly get money/status from the IR?
| inamiyar wrote:
| 1) Killing your own civilians is an interesting
| retaliation move against a foreign power.
|
| 2) In my family, the death of Qasem Soleimani was, and I
| don't mean to be insensitive, the death of a imperialist
| tyrant supporter.
|
| Iran does not deserve the sympathy you give them.
| girvo wrote:
| Iran's government and their supporters don't, yeah. The
| people with no stake in this fight, the Iranian civilians
| though?
| EB-Barrington wrote:
| "General Soleimani remains the most popular Iranian
| public figure among those tested, with eight in ten
| viewing him favorably."
|
| University of Maryland conclusion to survey results of
| thousands of Iranians.
|
| source: https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http
| s://cissm.u...
| Siira wrote:
| The gov comes down hard on people saying they don't like
| him, so the answers people give are biased. How biased, I
| don't know. I can tell you that even people who liked him
| still got outraged at the plane shooting.
| kortilla wrote:
| Before or after he became a martyr?
| [deleted]
| coldtea wrote:
| > _does a lot of small-scale aggression_
|
| Most states do, and many do much much worse, and still have
| great relations with their western allies (if not being
| directly funded to do so). Heck, they were hunky dory with
| Germany, merely a few years after they started a World War
| that killed 30+ million people, burned 6 million jews,
| etc., because "Cold War".
|
| > _e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free
| waters_
|
| After Korea seized some billions of their assets in its
| banks.
|
| > _They also pursue nuclear weapons_
|
| That's because any state without them is toast when the big
| dogs decide.
|
| Plus, they remember their history, like outsiders toppling
| their democratic leader, because he was getting too
| "socialist", and establising a lackey into power to play
| the king.
|
| Or outsiders funding their neighborhood country to go into
| war with them, praising their leadership, and then come
| back a decade later, do a u-turn, to invade them, hang
| their leader that was their ex ally, and occupy the country
| (that thet turned into a civil war hell-zone).
|
| Plus they have another country nearby with ample foreign
| support that's used as a proxy for foreign power in the
| area, and which has nuclear weapons itself.
| Siira wrote:
| > Plus, they remember their history, like outsiders
| toppling their democratic leader, because he was getting
| too "socialist", and establising a lackey into power to
| play the king.
|
| If by "they" you mean the IR, they were and are (though
| nowadays they are more undecided) opposed to Mosadegh.
| (Check out what streets are in his name. The IR reveals
| who they favor quite accurately in their naming scheme.).
| The people mostly don't care that much about Mosadegh, as
| the school history books are written by the IR, and
| Mosadegh is not painted all that well. Most Iranians also
| hate communists now (communism has long since been out of
| the overton window).
|
| > Or outsiders funding their neighborhood country to go
| into war with them, praising their leadership, and then
| come back a decade later, do a u-turn, to invade them,
| hang their leader that were their ex-allies, and occupy
| the country (that thet turned into a civil war hell-
| zone).
|
| A war which brought a lot of power to the IR and
| especially the Guards. A war that the IR itself
| protracted for years, perhaps because they were gathering
| power and clueless, fungible young people were dying,
| which was quite cheap. Their domestic strategy ever since
| has been to give merits to a minority that follows their
| orders, and crush their opposition thoroughly by any
| means necessary.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _If by "they" you mean the IR, they were and are
| (though nowadays they are more undecided) opposed to
| Mosadegh._
|
| I mean the Iran as people (and state with a degree with
| historical and cultural continuity). The IR might come
| and go, and leaders or fractions might be opposed to
| Mosadegh for religious, ideological, etc reasons, but the
| hummiliation and harm that was instilled in the people by
| the action influenced later events (and even today).
|
| > _A war which brought a lot of power to the IR and
| especially the Guards._
|
| Yeah, but that's neither here nor there. It did a whole
| lot of harm to Iran the people - and to the Iraq the
| people for that matter, and it was fuelled from outside.
| u801e wrote:
| I really don't see much difference in Iran having nuclear
| power or weaponary compared to Pakistan. Yet we don't see
| this type of attitude from the US and other countries in
| the immediate area (other than India) towards Pakistan.
|
| The domestic affairs handling applies equally to both
| countries, so why should Iran get singled out here?
| adventured wrote:
| They're not singled out. North Korea is also being
| treated similarly in regards to their pursuit and build-
| up of nuclear weapons. North Korea has been suffering
| under brutal sanctions and embargo on and off for decades
| now.
|
| Pakistan already has nukes and they're dangerously
| unstable. Pakistan is by a large margin the most unstable
| nuclear power. North Korea by comparison is a stable
| insular kingdom ruled by a dynasty family that has held
| power through thick and thin for 70 years. Pakistan is a
| powder keg always waiting to explode. Applying North
| Korean style sanctions on Pakistan is a lot more likely
| to result in an exceptionally bad outcome. And Iran does
| not yet have nuclear weapons, so if they crack into
| revolution right now that would not risk potential
| nuclear war or proliferation of nuclear weapons.
|
| Further, Iran has openly declared their intention to
| genocide Israel, on repeat. They say it whenever they get
| the chance. North Korea for decades has declared their
| desire to conquer South Korea and create one Korea under
| their rule, they repeat that at every opportunity (and
| when a country says for decades that they want to conquer
| you and they have nukes, you have to take them at their
| word).
| u801e wrote:
| > Further, Iran has openly declared their intention to
| genocide Israel, on repeat.
|
| Based on my understanding, that's based on a
| misinterpretation so what they're actually saying in
| Farsi. Even so, the attitude of the population and
| government in Pakistan towards Israel isn't that much
| different. Even if you consider the dynamics between
| Pakistan and India, the last war was 50 years ago and
| other than some skirmishes, nothing major happened.
|
| If we were to substitute Iran for Pakistan and Israel for
| India, would the situation be really that different?
|
| > North Korea for decades has declared their desire to
| conquer South Korea and create one Korea under their rule
|
| To a certain extent, this is what happened in Vietnam and
| the country appears to be doing okay these days.
| Siira wrote:
| > Based on my understanding, that's based on a
| misinterpretation so what they're actually saying in
| Farsi.
|
| On Israel, there are very explicit messages around,
| though it's more of a "Zionist" genocide. The IR will not
| care if the Jews just go out of the ME, presumably.
| miracle2k wrote:
| The Ayatollah is in record as stating they desire a
| referendum to solve the Palestinian question:
| https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/452465/Referendum-is-
| fair-s...
|
| It seems they are not using _every_ opportunity to
| advocate for genocide. Definitely some mixed messaging?
|
| On a more serious note, the notion that Iran wants to
| build a nuclear weapon so they can throw it on Israel is
| nonsense. Yes, Israel is perfectly right to be concerned
| about a country that would act against its security
| interests whenever given the chance, and would do so at
| least in part for ideological reasons (though this aspect
| is also overblown in the common narrative).
|
| But they haven't really declared their intention "to
| genocide Israel". You'll find that in most quotes that
| circulate, a defensive posture is implied ("if they dare
| to attack us"). People argue about whether the original
| Khomeini/Ahmadinejad quote ("wiping Israel off the map")
| should be translated as "removed from the pages of time",
| but it more importantly says "the regime occupying
| Palestine". Again, no peaceful agenda towards the country
| of Israel is to be found here, but no need for comically
| evil holocaust-like plans either.
| reissbaker wrote:
| Iranian leadership has referred to Israelis as "so-called
| humans"; has demanded a "final solution" to Israel; has
| repeatedly denied that the Holocaust happened, including
| hosting a Holocaust denial conference; has referred to
| Israel as a "cancerous tumor" to be destroyed; ...
|
| You don't have to look hard to find this stuff. These
| aren't mistranslations or misunderstandings. A lot of
| these translations _were done by the Iranian Republic
| themselves_ in press releases!
|
| These are less subtle than Trump's dog whistles about
| "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" -- which
| was bad enough. These are obvious, repeated, consistent
| statements and actions.
| typon wrote:
| By the way, being Iranian doesn't give you special
| understanding of foreign relations and the US role in the
| middle east. I'm sure it helps, but using it as an appeal
| to authority of some sort is misguided.
| refurb wrote:
| No, but it likely gives way more insight into Iranian
| society and their gov't than a random engineer from San
| Francisco.
| AsyncAwait wrote:
| > The Islamic Republic does a lot of small-scale aggression
| (e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters),
| and they lead many proxy militias. They also pursue nuclear
| weapons. Their handling of domestic affairs is also
| bullshit
|
| The United States does all these things too, it just has
| nobody big enough to sanction it.
|
| For the record, I am not a fan of the Islamist Republic,
| but banning access to GitHub does not punish the
| government, it puishes civilians. It also doesn't change
| the fact that it's the U.S. who pulled out of the Iran Deal
| or that medicine is impacted by the sanctions too.
|
| I mean the U.S. is buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia, the UAE,
| Egypt etc. etc. the behavior you're describing is clearly
| not the problem here.
| valtism wrote:
| There is a difference between what the US does vs. what
| someone like Qasem Soleimani did.
| AsyncAwait wrote:
| You're right. The US has a history of supporting death
| squads all over the world for over 70 years, longer then
| the Islamic Republic even exists.
|
| The fact that ISIS celebrated his death does indicate
| that perhaps we acted as their air force.
| reissbaker wrote:
| > I mean the U.S. is buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia, the
| UAE, Egypt etc. etc. the behavior you're describing is
| clearly not the problem here
|
| Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt don't have nuclear weapons
| programs, which is one of the behaviors described.
| mullingitover wrote:
| None of these things preclude a great relationship with the
| US, however.
|
| One could 's/Islamic Republic/KSA' here and it'd be pretty
| much the same stories. None of these bad behaviors would
| stop you from being tight allies with the US as long as
| your oppressive theocratic dictatorship was in the US
| sphere of influence.
|
| Heck, Iran is objectively far more democratic than KSA, not
| that it gets them any credit.
|
| > e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters
|
| The rest of the story: Because South Korea is effectively
| stealing $7B worth of oil from Iran. They're following the
| sanctions that the US unilaterally imposed after breaking
| its deal with Iran over nuclear enrichment, which Iran had
| been following.
| Rapzid wrote:
| > None of these things preclude a great relationship with
| the US, however.
|
| Doesn't it, though? We have great relationships with a
| relatively small number of countries. Then there are the
| mutually beneficial relationships.
|
| Maybe our definition of "great relationship" differs.
| When I think "great relationship" I think five-eyes
| countries plus maybe Japan. Perhaps arguably a few
| others.
| yyyk wrote:
| >One could 's/Islamic Republic/KSA' here and it'd be
| pretty much the same stories.
|
| KSA is smart enough not to openly shout 'Death to
| America'. Nor does it have a nuclear program or keeps
| hostages or refuses to join anti-terrorist transparency
| treaties.
|
| >The rest of the story: Because South Korea is
| effectively stealing $7B worth of oil from Iran.
|
| OK, lets have any country which has a financial dispute
| with some other country takes hostages. That would be a
| nice world, right? That's the world we'll be at if Iran
| keeps being rewarded for its behaviour.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| "Death to X" is an overly-literal translation of a common
| Persian idiom of frustration, eagerly and maliciously
| repeated by motivated parties to make Iranians look as
| dangerous as possible. It's essentially the Persian
| equivalent to "fuck X", and so this is as though you had
| your arm bitten off by a shark and said, "Fuck sharks!",
| and someone deliberately took that to mean you endorse
| bestiality.
| Siira wrote:
| This is a lie. The chant is literally "Death to X," there
| is no idiom whatsoever. The only human targets I have
| ever heard for this chant is the US and some of its
| allies (KSA, UK), the IR's leader, and some generic terms
| for the outgroup ("monafegh").
| miracle2k wrote:
| During the protests last year, Sohrab Ahmari, no friend
| of the IRI, chose to translate the phrase as "Down with
| the dictator". I wonder why.
| EB-Barrington wrote:
| This should may help you, and other interested persons
| determine whether or not marg bar Amrika is to be taken
| literally, or is indeed an idiom (btw, it is):
|
| In Persian, "Death to America" is "marg bar Amrika"
|
| Common Persian phrases, and these are everyday phrases in
| Iran include:
|
| 1) Marg! Literally, Death!, closest we have in English:
| Shut up!
|
| 2) Khabare margesh! Literally, the news of his/her death!
| This is used with someone you don't like, as in, you're
| only interested in the news of that persons death
| (perhaps a politician is a typical example).
|
| 3) Boro bemir! Literally, Go die! Again, in English, the
| equivalent is along the lines of Shut Up!
|
| 4) Che margeshe? Literally, what's his death? Used mostly
| for objects, such as when your car won't start.
|
| 5) Marge man, literally, my death. Used when you are
| swearing you are telling the truth.
|
| Iranians have so many idioms/expressions/figures-of-
| speech related to Death, this is just a small sample.
| ShroudedNight wrote:
| Are there good secondary sources for this? This alleged
| perversion strikes me as a significant linchpin in the
| structural animosity between the two people. I really
| want it to be true, so am particularly hesitant to accept
| it without compelling evidence.
| potatoz2 wrote:
| Maybe
| https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/world/middleeast/some-
| ira... (there's also a Wikipedia article). I think a good
| comparison may also be "damn Kubernetes", you're not
| literally damning some technology. It's less clear in the
| phrase "damn you to hell". I think it's kind of similar,
| it's overloaded.
| a1369209993 wrote:
| > I think a good comparison may also be "damn
| Kubernetes", you're not literally damning some
| technology.
|
| The only reason I don't mean that literally is because a:
| I'm fairly sure Hell doesn't exist, and b: if it did, I
| support and endorse most of the people there (eg
| blasphemers, scientists and other heretics, homosexuals
| and other deviants, and of course heathens, infidels, and
| apostates) and would not wish to inflict Kubernetes on
| them, even if the resulting increase in suffering would
| only be a rounding error.
|
| I think you have a valid point _in general_ , but in this
| case I would, in fact, prefer for Kubernetes to be gone
| from the world entirely, and I don't think this is by any
| means a unique position, either regarding Kubernetes, or
| in the general case of "damn X".
| EB-Barrington wrote:
| This may help:
|
| In Persian, "Death to America" is "marg bar Amrika"
|
| Common Persian phrases, and these are everyday phrases in
| Iran include:
|
| 1) Marg! Literally, Death!, closest we have in English:
| Shut up!
|
| 2) Khabare margesh! Literally, the news of his/her death!
| This is used with someone you don't like, as in, you're
| only interested in the news of that persons death
| (perhaps a politician is a typical example).
|
| 3) Boro bemir! Literally, Go die! Again, in English, the
| equivalent is along the lines of Shut Up!
|
| 4) Che margeshe? Literally, what's his death? Used mostly
| for objects, such as when your car won't start.
|
| 5) Marge man, literally, my death. Used when you are
| swearing you are telling the truth.
|
| Iranians have so many expressions/figures-of-speech
| related to Death.
| elefanten wrote:
| Seems... well, pretty violent. And strangely dedicated to
| wishing death/finality upon everything.
|
| That's stark when most cultures draw on disgust
| (excrement etc) or some kind of power/possession dynamic
| (fucking, owning, etc).
| nashashmi wrote:
| I thought it was the equivalent of "damn you" or "go to
| hell". Or "leave us alone".
| phobosanomaly wrote:
| Even if it does literally mean 'death to America,' as an
| American I always interpreted that as being directed at
| the American government. I never took it personally.
| Hell, I could probably wear _them_ out complaining about
| the federal government.
| nashashmi wrote:
| It offends all those who are patriotic to America no
| matter who or how the government is. Remember this came
| out in the 70s when the sayings were Love it or Leave it.
|
| Also when the concept is paired with imagery of a Nuclear
| Iran, you can't help but feel attacked.
| phobosanomaly wrote:
| Nah. I love my country dearly, but I don't feel attacked
| at all.
|
| My country has done a lot of stupid stuff in the Middle
| East. I get why they're upset. They should be. Fair
| enough.
|
| It would be nice for us to move past the petty hatred
| over things that happened 50 years ago.
| input_sh wrote:
| > Nor does it have a nuclear program
|
| If only there was some international agency that could
| have people on the ground that could walk into any place
| in Iran under any suspicion that they _might_ be
| enriching uranium beyond the levels needed for nuclear
| power plants, overriding basically any local laws that
| might prevent them access. We could call it International
| Atomic Energy Agency or something.
|
| Now seriously, this was in the deal that the US pulled
| out of, as well as an agreement that Iran will not enrich
| uranium beyond like 4% (enough for nuclear power plants,
| not bombs), reducing their stockpiles of uranium by 97%
| and much, much more. Now just days ago Iran let IAEA know
| that they're going to enrich it up to 20%.
| yyyk wrote:
| Yea. It would be tough for Iran to develop weapons under
| those conditions, if they existed in reality. What would
| a smart leadership do to make it easier?
|
| If only there was a deal that wrote down that the
| international agency needed to ask permission from Iran
| in advance for inspections of 'military sites'. Also
| explicitly allow Iran to keep researching enrichment so
| breakout time would be small. And make that any extra
| restrictions are temporary. After all, there was that
| deal with North Korea, and we see how it worked so well -
| for North Korea.
| input_sh wrote:
| It's uranium, you can't simply hide it in the matter of
| days. Not to mention 24/7 video surveillance, satellite
| images, and that IAEA released quarterly reports and
| every one of them until over a year after US withdrew
| from the agreement said the same: Iran complied. Hell,
| even a year after Iran let IAEA know that they're gonna
| exceed their limits. Here's the entire timeline for those
| interested:
| https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-
| Nuclear-D...
|
| Nothing like the situation was with North Korea, where
| North Korea was uncooperative with the IAEA, mostly
| disagreeing on which parts of the plants IAEA can access.
| Not to mention IAEA had 20 years in between to improve
| their methods.
|
| US absolutely shot themselves in the foot by withdrawing
| from the deal no matter how you look at it.
| yyyk wrote:
| >It's uranium, you can't simply hide it in the matter of
| days.
|
| The problem here is that Iran was allowed to not tell all
| on previous existing program. Lets pretend they cheat and
| IAEA finds out traces of Uranium. What happens when they
| argue that the Uranium signature is pre-2015 and not from
| a new installation? There's not enough time passed to
| prove either way.
|
| > US absolutely shot themselves in the foot by
| withdrawing from the deal no matter how you look at it.
|
| US had to look for improvements, even if Clinton had been
| elected, since the agreement was designed to be
| temporary. The tactics involved are a different matter. I
| guess Trump could have been more devious and unofficially
| sanction Iran while officially staying part of the deal.
| Would that have been better? Hmm.. difficult to say.
| input_sh wrote:
| It was temporary in a sense that it applied for 10-15
| years, so until 2025-2030. Whoever won in 2016 simply
| didn't need to worry about it in their first term. Iran
| did nothing to provoke it, IAEA repeatedly confirmed
| that, and Trump simply decided to undo it because it was
| Obama that reached the deal.
| CryptoPunk wrote:
| >>What happens when they argue that the Uranium signature
| is pre-2015 and not from a new installation?
|
| Is this even possible? Doesn't the half-life of the
| enriched uranium reveal when it was enriched?
|
| >>The tactics involved are a different matter. I guess
| Trump could have been more devious and unofficially
| sanction Iran while officially staying part of the deal.
| Would that have been better? Hmm.. difficult to say.
|
| The US could have stayed party to the nuclear deal and
| coordinated any new negotiations with its European
| allies, and that would have been substantially better
| than reneging on an important nuclear arms control deal.
| yyyk wrote:
| >Is this even possible? Doesn't the half-life of the
| enriched uranium reveal when it was enriched?
|
| I am not an expert, but I believe Carbon dating is based
| on similar principles. Yet archeologists always give
| +-100 years variation in their estimates. Could IAEA
| really get to +-10 years or better? None of this would
| matter normally, except for the particular structure of
| the deal.
|
| >The US could have stayed party to the nuclear deal and
| coordinated any new negotiations with its European allies
|
| Support from the EU isn't the real question. We see the
| US can enforce unilaterally. Nor would Iran act
| differently if the EU had fully joined the pressure, or
| if the EU would also have torn up the deal. The question
| was whether to fix from inside or tear it up. Either way
| it would have to involve pressure.
| CryptoPunk wrote:
| Detection of any enriched uranium at a site, combined
| with evidence of recent earth work, would be a pretty
| clear smoking gun, so I don't think that would be a
| viable way to avoid being held accountable for
| unauthorized nuclear enrichment.
|
| >>Nor would Iran act differently if the EU had fully
| joined the pressure, or if the EU would also have torn up
| the deal.
|
| Reneging on a deal undermines the credibility of the
| diplomatic process and ratchets up tensions which
| increases the chance of a military conflict. Having a
| united front is good both for cross-Atlantic ties and the
| chances of resolving the dispute peacefully.
| yyyk wrote:
| >Detection of any enriched uranium at a site, combined
| with evidence of recent earth work, would be a pretty
| clear smoking gun,
|
| The UN/IAEA process requires unanimity among the major
| powers. Since Iran has been left with an semi-believable
| out, there's enough diplomatic cover to allow
| Russia/China to cover for it there (see Syrian chemical
| weapons for comparison). For once such a position would
| be understandable: If seeing enriched Uranium could
| eventually lead to war, and there's a way to rationalize
| it, how much of a smoking gun would it be? Allowing that
| rationalization was an error in the deal.
|
| > Having a united front is good both for cross-Atlantic
| ties and the chances of resolving the dispute peacefully.
|
| The structure of the deal made some form of renegotiation
| inevitable (since the main restrictions were temporary).
| The question is how to do it.
| CryptoPunk wrote:
| >>The UN/IAEA process requires unanimity among the major
| powers.
|
| I think your assessment of the outcome of said smoking
| gun is unrealistic. The scandal described would have
| massive political repercussions that would go far beyond
| any letter of the deal.
|
| >>The structure of the deal made some form of
| renegotiation inevitable (since the main restrictions
| were temporary).
|
| Why would it inevitably need to be renegotiated?
|
| >>The question is how to do it.
|
| By honoring the deal and working with other countries on
| a new one if/when it's needed.
| yyyk wrote:
| >I think your assessment of the outcome of said smoking
| gun is unrealistic. The scandal described would have
| massive political repercussions...
|
| The structure of the deal gave a way to rationalize not
| seeing, which means some people will rationalize. That
| was a bad policy error, hopefully it will remain only a
| policy error.
|
| >Why would it inevitably need to be renegotiated?
|
| First, because the restrictions were temporary, starting
| to expire in this term. If these are needed, then they
| will be needed in the future. After all, The regime
| hasn't changed. Second, because there were other issues
| between everyone and Iran and not resolving these will
| lead to the same results as in the past.
|
| >By honoring the deal and working with other countries on
| a new one if/when it's needed.
|
| The US position is the one that matter here, so lets
| discuss that. The US isn't going to let other countries
| decide its foreign policy.
| AsyncAwait wrote:
| > KSA is smart enough not to openly shout 'Death to
| America'.
|
| Try imposing harsh sanctions on them, murdering their
| generals etc., organizing illegal coups & we'll see then.
|
| > Nor does it have a nuclear program
|
| That's false[1].
|
| There's little credible evidence Iran is trying to
| actually build a bomb.
|
| 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saud
| i_Arabi...
|
| > refuses to join anti-terrorist transparency treaties
|
| It only funds terrorists in Syria, Yemen etc. and
| constructs radical schools all over, being dubbed fatwa
| valley but nothing to see here.
|
| > That's the world we'll be at if Iran keeps being
| rewarded for its behaviour.
|
| It seems to me like they tried to be constructive with
| the Iran Deal and got betrayed by the U.S. again. They
| have plenty of reason not to trust the U.S. Iran has not
| staged a coup in the U.S. as far as I know.
| yyyk wrote:
| >Try imposing harsh sanctions on them, murdering their
| generals etc., organizing illegal coups & we'll see then.
|
| The first is after a nuclear program and Iran killing
| hundreds of American soldiers. The coup is unrelated
| (would you support bombing a different country over
| something that happened 60 years ago when both countries
| had very different governments?), and quite funny when
| one remembers the Islamists also supported the coup.
|
| >It seems to me like they tried to be constructive with
| the Iran Deal
|
| If you define being constructive as taking hostages over
| and over than yes they were.
|
| >There's little credible evidence Iran is trying to
| actually build a bomb.
|
| Apart from weapon drawings, direct recordings of one the
| key architects discussing weapons[1], mass uranium
| enrichment.... SA has nothing remotely comparable.
|
| [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-has-tape-of-
| slain-iran-...
| mullingitover wrote:
| > The first is after a nuclear program and Iran killing
| hundreds of American soldiers.
|
| How far back should we go with the tit for tat
| calculations? I recall a war where US sold Iraq chemical
| weapons to kill Iranian soldiers[1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_
| against...
| adventured wrote:
| Correction, Germany did more than anyone to help Iraq
| with chemical weapons. 52% of their chemical weapons
| equipment derived from Germany for example. The Germans
| knew exactly what they were doing.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_prog
| ram
| DeafSquid wrote:
| Germany murdering people with chemical weapons?!?! That's
| absurd!
| pushswap wrote:
| Civilians, not only soldiers, were gassed by the German's
| munitions resulting in long term injuries and deaths.
| It's surprising this isn't more well known, and that
| Germany was not internationally censured, tried, & made
| to pay compensation to the victims of these disgusting
| actions following their conduct in the Holocaust.
|
| Why's it so necessary for Germany to sell chemical
| weapons to be used in a warzone anyway? I wouldn't be
| surprised to see these were the same companies or
| individuals that acted 40 years earlier.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_ag
| ain...
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
| mullingitover wrote:
| I'd call it a team effort. The US was certainly selling
| dual use equipment in the war, and not only did it not
| lift a finger to stop the use of chemical weapons, it
| blocked the UN Security Council from even _passing a
| resolution saying that using them was a bad thing._
| stretchcat wrote:
| America also provided rhetorical cover for Iraq by
| accusing Iran of using chemical weapons as well.
| Allegations which were never substantiated, probably
| because it never actually happened.
|
| And when the Reagan administration learned that Iraq was
| targetting their own Kurdish population with chemical
| weapons, they still didn't give a shit. But two decades
| later, when Bush the Younger decided to emulate his
| father, the American government invoked those gas attacks
| against civilians as a justification to dismantle Iraq.
| Two decades late for the Kurds that got gassed by Iraq
| while the American government pretended not to notice.
| American foreign policy is depraved.
| yyyk wrote:
| Actually, Iran was happy to take American support during
| that war[1], and the Iraqi program was not supported by
| the US - the program was mainly supported by French and
| Germany, which Iran is weirdly not pissed at.
|
| Almost like there's no tit-for-tat. Maybe the real reason
| for the enmity is the Iranian regime being theocratic
| revolutionaries and the US not allowing them to 'export
| their revolution' (that is, take over the ME) as much as
| they'd like.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
| mullingitover wrote:
| I agree realpolitik is certainly a thing, and as long as
| we can see that with clear eyes and not settle on one
| side or another being 'the good guys' or 'the bad guys'
| we're all much better off. The best outcome for everyone
| is for de-escalation and peacemaking efforts that reduce
| the suffering of the regular people in the region.
| yyyk wrote:
| Realpolitik is not an excuse to look away from the moral
| results of policy. So long as the Iranian regime keeps
| trying to expand its hold or to attack Israel the ME
| won't be stable or peaceful. We saw the results of that
| in Syria. Stability would require a change in Iranian
| policies, right now the regime is unwilling to do that.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > Realpolitik is not an excuse to look away from the
| moral results of policy
|
| Realpolitik is pretty much the act of never caring about
| the moral results of policy, and every power in the
| middle east practices it. I'm not convinced that KSA
| would be doing anything morally superior to what Iran is
| doing if they were in Iran's shoes. Stability would be
| what changes Iranian policies, and there are a lot of
| parties dedicated to ensuring that stability never breaks
| out in the middle east.
| yyyk wrote:
| >Realpolitik is pretty much the act of never caring about
| the moral results of policy
|
| Yea, and it's not a good idea in the long term.
|
| >I'm not convinced that KSA would be doing anything
| morally superior to what Iran is doing if they were in
| Iran's shoes.
|
| What matters is what countries do now and not what some
| countries might have done if history were entirely
| different.
|
| >Stability would be what changes Iranian policies
|
| Many years ago, Kissinger said the Iranian regime has to
| choose whether whether Iran is country or a cause. They
| chose to make Iran a cause. Stability is incompatible
| with the cause's ideology.
| mullingitover wrote:
| Realpolitik is arguably the only geopolitical philosophy
| countries have ever operated under in modern times. We
| throw revisionism into the history books to feel better
| about ourselves after the fact. You're here citing
| Kissinger as a venerable authority rather than an amoral
| war criminal, case in point.
|
| KSA exports the same toxic religious fundamentalism, the
| same if not more radical than anything Iran espouses. The
| difference is they have the fig leaf of support from
| first world countries as they do it.
| yyyk wrote:
| >You're here citing Kissinger as a venerable authority
| rather than an amoral war criminal, case in point.
|
| Citing Kissinger does not mean endorsing him.
|
| >KSA exports the same toxic religious fundamentalism...
|
| Iranian-supported fundamentalism controls 4 ME captials,
| KSA controls only 1 capital. Iran is a explicitly anti-
| American revisionist power with a serious nuclear program
| while KSA isn't.
|
| Unsurprisingly, I focus on the bigger more toxic power
| (that wasn't always the case - two decades ago KSA was
| the bigger issue). Isn't that more like realpolitiks
| rather than talking about what would some fictional KSA
| have done?
| mikem170 wrote:
| It sounds like you are biased, in favor of the U.S., and
| discounting Iranian interests.
| AsyncAwait wrote:
| You do realize KSA has is hands all over 9/11 right?
| yyyk wrote:
| And KSA was indeed the bigger problem two decades ago.
| These days it's Iran that is sheltering Al-Qaeda people.
| stretchcat wrote:
| > _and the Iraqi program was not supported by the US_
|
| Yes it was. The CIA _knowingly_ helped Iraq kill Iranians
| with nerve gas:
|
| > _Declassified CIA documents show that the United States
| was providing reconnaissance intelligence to Iraq around
| 1987-88 which was then used to launch chemical weapon
| attacks on Iranian troops and that the CIA fully knew
| that chemical weapons would be deployed and sarin and
| cyclosarin attacks followed.[255]_
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
| phobosanomaly wrote:
| > _nuclear program_
|
| Objectively, why can't Iran have a nuclear program while
| Israel, India, and Pakistan can?
|
| > _Iran killing hundreds of American soldiers_
|
| They are a regional superpower and the United States
| invaded and destabilized their neighbor causing
| widespread chaos throughout the region. Civilian
| casualties from violence in Iraq following the
| destabilization of the '03 war have been estimated at
| around 200,000.
|
| > _would you support bombing a different country over
| something that happened 60 years ago_
|
| The US did shoot down an Irainian civilian airliner in
| 1988 and refuse to apologize about it.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
|
| And then assassinated one of their generals earlier this
| year.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Sole
| ima...
|
| > _SA has nothing remotely comparable_
|
| They don't need them. They can do whatever they want in
| the region while the U.S. looks away and sells them the
| weapons to do it.
|
| _" The bomb dropped on a school bus in Yemen by a Saudi-
| led coalition warplane was sold to Riyadh by the US,
| according to reports based on analysis of the debris.
|
| The 9 August attack killed 40 boys aged from six to 11
| who were being taken on a school trip. Eleven adults also
| died. Local authorities said that 79 people were wounded,
| 56 of them children. CNN reported that the weapon used
| was a 227kg laser-guided bomb made by Lockheed Martin,
| one of many thousands sold to Saudi Arabia as part of
| billions of dollars of weapons exports.
|
| Saudi Arabia is the biggest single customer for both the
| US and UK arms industries. The US also supports the
| coalition with refuelling and intelligence."_
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/19/us-
| supplied-bo...
| yyyk wrote:
| >Objectively, why can't Iran have a nuclear program while
| Israel, India, and Pakistan can?
|
| Because Iran signed the NPT unlike the others and should
| abide by its commitments? Because Iran is the country
| which threatens other countries publicly? Because the
| Pakistani bomb is enough of a problem and nobody really
| needs another such problem?
|
| >They are a regional superpower and the United States
| invaded and destabilized their neighbor causing
| widespread chaos throughout the region. Civilian
| casualties from violence in Iraq following the
| destabilization of the '03 war have been estimated at
| around 200,000.
|
| How many of those are the result of Iranian involvement?
| For that matter, how many civilian casualties are the
| result of Iranian 'stabilization' in Syria?
|
| >The US did shoot down an Irainian civilian airliner in
| 1988 and refuse to apologize about it.
|
| Read your own cite, there was an agreement and
| compensation.
|
| >And then assassinated one of their generals earlier this
| year.
|
| Who had been involved in attacking American soldiers.
|
| >They [SA] don't need them. They can do whatever they
| want in the region while the U.S. looks away and sells
| them the weapons to do it.
|
| SA couldn't even respond to the attack on their oil
| facilities. I was talking about the Iranian nuclear
| problem though.
| phobosanomaly wrote:
| > " _Because Iran signed the NPT_ "
|
| They signed in 1968. In your words, " _something that
| happened 60 years ago when both countries had very
| different governments_ " But, perhaps after watching the
| US performance in Iraq, maybe Iran wanted a credible
| deterrent to prevent the same thing from happening to
| them.
|
| If the issue with the nuclear program was really about
| proliferation, the US would have active sanctions against
| Pakistan. AQ Khan wasn't an Iranian!
|
| > " _How many of those are the result of Iranian
| involvement?_ "
|
| They didn't invade the country, overthrow the government,
| and disband the army. If Iran invaded Mexico, overthrew
| the government, and disbanded the army plunging the
| country into chaos, do you think the US would stand by
| and do nothing? No way!
|
| Do you feel that the ISI is any more odious of an
| institution that Iranian military intelligence in that
| respect? Why does the US treat them so differently?
|
| > " _agreement and compensation_ "
|
| That's blood money, not an apology. The US screwed up big
| time in shooting down that plane, and the best they could
| muster was that it was a "...proper defensive action by
| the U.S.S. Vincennes." ( _rolls eyes_ ) When Iran shot
| down the Ukrainian airliner, at least they had the
| decency to label it a "disastrous mistake."
|
| > " _Who had been involved in attacking American
| soldiers._ "
|
| Why were the American soldiers there halfway across the
| planet in a country where they aren't welcome and don't
| speak the language? Maybe they wanted the Americans out
| so that the region could achieve some stability?
|
| My point with the Saudi-Yemen thing is that KSA doesn't
| need nukes as an insurance policy because the US has
| their back. No nuclear-armed superpower has Iran's back,
| so they're probably looking for the security of a nuclear
| deterrent.
|
| The US-Irainian conflict, like the US conflict with Cuba,
| is something that should have ended decades ago. It's a
| legacy of old political hostilities that happened when my
| parents were teenagers. It's 2021, we have better things
| to worry about. It's all so petty.
| yyyk wrote:
| >> "Because Iran signed the NPT"
|
| >In 1968.
|
| So old agreements don't mean anything? I support laying
| down old grievances, but going back on old agreements is
| usually undesirable, especially after having no
| objections all this time. Half the international treaties
| are older than that, which ones are 'safe'?
|
| >> "How many of those are the result of Iranian
| involvement?" >They didn't invade the country.. plunging
| the country into chaos
|
| Iran sure tried to between 1982 and 1988. And quite a lot
| of the Iraqi chaos is their doing. They need a weak Iraqi
| government so their militia can create a state within the
| state.
|
| >That's blood money, not an apology.
|
| Iran agreed to it. When Iran shot down its own citizens,
| it lied about the event until footage leaked out making
| the lie unsustainable.
|
| >Maybe they wanted the Americans out so that the region
| could achieve some stability?
|
| Right. The guys building substate militias everywhere,
| undermining half the states in ME really care about
| stability.
|
| >the US has their [SA] back Which is why the US really
| helped them after Iran attacked their oil facilities.
| Not.
|
| >they're probably looking for the security of a nuclear
| deterrent.
|
| They are the one openly calling for the elimination of
| one ME state, and the overthrow of a half dozen regimes
| on the other. If they want security they should look at
| their own actions. Or perhaps the 'security' the Iranian
| regime is looking for is being able to attack others
| without fear of interference from the West.
| phobosanomaly wrote:
| I'm not arguing that Iran is the best country ever, who
| does only nice things and only hugs their neighbors.
|
| I'm arguing that when you weigh Iran's activities in the
| Middle East alongside U.S. activities in the region over
| the last 30 years or-so, Iran really doesn't look like
| the boogeyman it's made out to be.
|
| As a result, when viewing each other as perhaps within
| the same order of magnitude on the morally outrageous
| activities scale, the two countries could maybe leave
| behind the tired old mutual hatred routine that has
| played itself out since 1979.
|
| A big part of that could be the United States extending
| an olive branch, apologizing for a few things, letting a
| few things go, and not simply pointing fingers and
| rattling sabers at them for cheap political points. The
| U.S. should be able to look around, realize that they
| have more important stuff to worry about, and embrace
| Iran as an economic partner like Europe and China have
| done.
|
| It's ok for the U.S. to take the first step and extend an
| open hand. Go to the Wikipedia page on the 'Reactions to
| the September 11 attacks.' The Iranians deserve it on the
| basis of their behavior in the early days after 9/11, and
| the help they gave the U.S. in the early days of the
| Afghan War. They're not bad people, and have expressed a
| great deal of kindness to the United States in times of
| vulnerability.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_
| 11_...
|
| Push soft power aggressively, offer a more prosperous
| alternative, and you'll pull the damn rug right out from
| under the hard-liner's justification for their hold on
| power.
|
| If the U.S. has learned anything from Cuba, it should be
| that the stupid 60-year embargo didn't do anything but
| keep the Cuban people poor and bitter, and the Castro
| brothers in power.
|
| Our current policy is something dragged up from the
| Carter administration. It's not the seventies anymore.
|
| More GitHub. Less John Bolton.
| yyyk wrote:
| Despite having far less power, the Iranian regime's ME
| body count is higher than any other country - even if we
| blame Iraq solely on US. Letting those fanatics have
| nukes would be a mistake. But lets put that aside.
|
| How did the 'engage economically to change the regime'
| policy work with China and Russia? For that matter, did
| Cuba change at all after Obama's attempt? These policies
| were a complete failure - the regimes got stronger, yet
| the drivers of conflict remained. Eventually the same old
| frosty relations returned.
|
| Engagement fails when it is not reciprocal. The economics
| did not encourage the regimes to get more moderate -
| rather the reverse. In order for true change in relations
| to happen, the other side has to commit themselves to
| some change too. Unfortunately, the Iranian regime is
| ideologically committed to its current policies, and
| refusing to discuss any matters except maybe nuclear.
| They are definitely not willing to apologize or let
| things go. I see no real prospects for engagement until
| this changes.
| kortilla wrote:
| > Try imposing harsh sanctions on them, murdering their
| generals etc., organizing illegal coups & we'll see then.
|
| > They have plenty of reason not to trust the U.S.
|
| Do you see how your goal posts have shifted from "Iran
| wants peace" to "Of course Iran doesn't want peace, look
| at how bad the US is?"
| AsyncAwait wrote:
| The fact that they don't like or trust the US does not
| mean they also don't want peace. If your idea of peace
| however is the US antagonizing in the region, (Iran's
| backyard if you will) and Iran disarming and sitting on
| their ass watching the US surround them, without any
| regional allies, then no I don't think Iran is after
| that, I also don't think it has anything to do with
| _wanting_ peace.
| nashashmi wrote:
| KSA is smart enough to make everyone hate Iran. The stuff
| you mention is just Iran hating back.
| yongjik wrote:
| > OK, lets have any country which has a financial dispute
| with some other country takes hostages. That would be a
| nice world, right? That's the world we'll be at if Iran
| keeps being rewarded for its behaviour.
|
| Well, I'd have to point out, when the US told South Korea
| (and the rest of the world) to cut trades with Iran (or
| else), it was engaging in this very kind of behavior.
|
| As a South Korean, I'd appreciate if the US and Iran
| could talk to each other like adults and leave my country
| out of this, but that's not the kind of world we're
| living in. -\\_(tsu)_/-
| yyyk wrote:
| >the US... was engaging in this very kind of behavior.
|
| The US is taking South Korean hostages?
| yongjik wrote:
| Who needs hostages, when you can crush a whole country's
| economy with your thumbs? America can cause $$$ to
| instantly evaporate off Korea just by looking at it the
| wrong way. You think Korea is keeping Iran's 7 billion
| dollars just because we like to be a jerk?
|
| I don't want to complain too much, because the
| arrangement is usually mutually beneficial (after all, if
| you _have_ to keep thousands of foreign soldiers on your
| own soil, better to be a part of team America than team
| Iran or team China) - I just think it would be better if
| we talk about practicality instead of moral outrages.
| yyyk wrote:
| I don't think practicality and moral outrages are in
| contradiction. There's a practical reason to get outraged
| here - because it would be bad for SK if everyone starts
| taking hostages and because SK has a duty to its
| citizens.
| frequentnapper wrote:
| >but that's not the kind of world we're living in.
|
| Exactly, because without US Navy, China would be taking
| Korean ships and you wouldn't be able to do anything
| about it.
| 8leafclover wrote:
| As an Iranian, you're quite uninformed here--that or you're
| purposefully muddying up events to create a narrative. Lets
| go down the list.
|
| The confiscation of the Korean ship was a result of the
| Koreans freezing Iranian funds.
|
| They lead many proxy militias...uhhh who doesn't??
|
| They pursue nuclear weapons...evidence? All evidence
| suggests the program was stopped in 2003.
|
| Their handling of domestic affairs is quite bad though its
| impossible to look at this in a vacuum without considering
| the role of sanctions.
| tathougies wrote:
| I mean Iran threatens every month or so to literally bomb
| Israel off the map. Some countries are okay with that kind of
| rhetoric. In general, the US is not.
| avip wrote:
| Now they could open an issue for that. "#73: Israel seems
| to still exist on some maps"
| ineedasername wrote:
| Maybe, if they decide to use GitHub as a versioning
| system for their policy & geopolitical strategy. Perhaps
| a bunch of pull requests for "don't build nuclear
| weapons" would get approved, and #73 could be closed as
| "not a bug"
| miracle2k wrote:
| They do not.
| ucm_edge wrote:
| Iran just seized a South Korean oil tanker yesterday to give
| it civilian hostages as leverage in on going negotiations
| with South Korea, a country that has never engaged in any
| form of violence against Iran.
| orhmeh09 wrote:
| How do you know they seized it for leverage? Iran says it
| seized the ship because it was polluting the area.
| [deleted]
| ineedasername wrote:
| If that was more than an obvious propaganda smoke screen
| then Iran wouldn't hold the crew hostage.
|
| Iran has also failed to provide evidence for their
| accusation and did not provide either a warning or
| opportunity to remediate the claimed polution. Evidence
| for a crime is of course generally considered a
| requirement.
|
| They also have a strong recent history of this sort of
| activity.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Well, Iran supporting North Korea, funneling arms and
| resources to terrorists, and launching missiles at us
| probably didn't help. The EU disagreement is specifically
| with the harshness of the sanctions - they still believe Iran
| should be sanctioned, just not as harshly.
| AsyncAwait wrote:
| > funneling arms and resources to terrorists
|
| You do realize the U.S. does that on a regular basis right?
| So do its Gulf Wahhabi allies in the region.
| ineedasername wrote:
| So you think that makes it okay for Iran to do it?
| Hypocrisy doesn't make someone else's bad actions
| acceptable.
| flyinglizard wrote:
| This is why those discussions from a morally neutral
| standpoint are a waste of time. It's entirely reasonable
| for one side to punish the others for having nukes while
| having those itself. We are not some impartial aliens
| surveying the planet, each of us is affected by these
| things.
| newen wrote:
| You mean politically neutral standpoint, not morally
| neutral standpoint.
| drstewart wrote:
| And I don't think anyone would complain if Iran wants to
| sanction the US
| [deleted]
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| It's not entirely the US. Unfortunately there's other people
| in the region who really don't want anyone being friends with
| Iran who we'd rather be friends with.
|
| Back when it looked like relations might thaw during Obama
| every big business was foaming at the mouth over the
| opportunity to make a buck selling things in a new market.
| There's a lot of very powerful people who's ideal vision of
| places like Iran, Cuba, North Korea, etc involves everyday
| citizens using their iPhones to daytrade on the American
| stock exchanges over a Verizon tower while driving their
| Chevrolet trucks, smoking Marlboros and wearing Nikes
| visarga wrote:
| That's not so bad actually.
| Fazel94 wrote:
| If only that was possible and sustainable :)
| sa-mao wrote:
| Except maybe the smoking part, which is as you might know
| bad for health.
| backing wrote:
| What are your sources?
| ineedasername wrote:
| What are _your_ sources for the expectation that sources
| should be provided?
| ineedasername wrote:
| The US is hardly the sole aggressor here. Iran has conducted
| many provocations against others, not least of which is
| directly contributing to destabilizing forces within other
| countries in the region and relentless pursuit of a nuclear
| weapons program.
| dang wrote:
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25648849.
| [deleted]
| Yourmama wrote:
| Microsoft is best! Simply the best
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| That's an awesome achievement. Sanctions should be imposed on
| governments, particular corporations and specific individuals.
| Not on all the people who are only guilty in being unfortunate
| enough to be born in a particular country or have a reason to
| visit it.
| goldenkey wrote:
| That's a potent verisimilitude. The people of Iran pay taxes
| which funds their government. The people employed in government
| positions in Iran, are Iranians. The government of
| authoritarian regimes and even democratic governments has its
| hand in all sectors through tariffs, taxes, and regulations.
|
| Of course citizens shouldn't suffer the pangs of incompetent,
| lazy, or evil governments. That's why virtuous imperialism was
| a thing.
|
| But aside from sounding good, how do you suppose these
| government sanctions should be instituted in order to be
| effective?
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| > The people of Iran pay taxes which funds their government.
|
| Can they stop? Hardly. As soon as one stops paying taxes and
| gets caught he is officially a criminal. No he can't even
| emigrate because foreign countries won't give him a visa: you
| usually are required to provide a certificate of having no
| criminal records at your home country to the embassy when you
| apply and they don't take "I just didn't want to support our
| wicked government" as an excuse.
| goldenkey wrote:
| Exactly. It's extremely unfortunate that the dependency is
| so circular.
| jhallenworld wrote:
| I have an anecdote about Iranian internet access: years ago (2006
| maybe) Google came out with a way to determine the top search
| terms by country. For the US and most countries it was what you
| would expect: porn, sports, movie and music stars.
|
| Now for Iran it was control theory, FPGA design, chemical
| engineering, etc.. I suspect only weapons designers had internet
| access. Maybe universities, but no porn? Not likely..
|
| So Google trends no longer shows porn or Iran.
| [deleted]
| csomar wrote:
| Probably because Porn in blocked in Iran. So Iranian first
| connect to Tor or a VPN which makes their IP western.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| Your vision of Iranians not having internet access in that era
| is very misinformed, I'm afraid. Young Iranians already made
| heavy use of the web in the early millennium, though often
| through VPNs (which, as the other poster mentions, would have
| masked their actual country).
|
| As soon as Goodreads was launched in 2007, it swiftly attracted
| an enormous number of Iranian university students: they are one
| of the most active demographics on the site and they review all
| kinds of books since (with lax copyright laws and high
| literacy) translation of foreign literature flourishes in Iran.
| Does that sound like a people bereft of web access?
| ghostbrainalpha wrote:
| Once someone uses "bereft" casually and correctly in
| conversation, I decide their opinion is probably the correct
| one.
|
| Well done sir.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > Young Iranians already made heavy use of the web in the
| early millennium
|
| They were are/are prolific Iranian hacking groups too. I had
| the misfortune of having my small site defaced (in a drive-
| by) and Googled a string from the usual shout-out and found a
| _lot_ of matches on similarly defaced sites. I counted that
| as evidence towards a robust Iranian underground hacking
| scene. This was way before APT & state-level actors were in
| the public consciousness.
| alFReD-NSH wrote:
| Probably it's because porn is blocked and the average Iranian
| would search in Persian and not English, so possibly Google
| trends didn't have the Persian terms.
| Fazel94 wrote:
| As an Iranian who watched a lot of porn back home, it is not
| true. In 2006 it was limited speed though, and censored, so if
| I watched porn, I would have to be on VPN or proxy.
|
| The cause: Iran has free government run universities, so
| education is a big thing here. Go to Stanford EE department,
| you would be surprised by seeing that many Iranians.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| I gotta say Github seems to me to be using Microsoft's deep
| pockets for good. Not every company could afford to work on this
| like that.
| srockets wrote:
| And yet they make a point to also take ICE's money as well.
| strombofulous wrote:
| They donate 2.5x the licensing fee from ICE to "nonprofit
| organizations working to support immigrant communities
| targeted by the current administration".
|
| They also mention that "While ICE does manage immigration law
| enforcement, ... they are also on the front lines of fighting
| human trafficking [and] child exploitation" and that "GitHub
| has no visibility into how this software is being used, other
| than presumably for software development and version
| control."
|
| If gh were to revoke their licenses, they would probably (a)
| just switch to gitlab or something similar, (b) be harming
| the anti-trafficking and anti-child exploitation efforts just
| as much as their anti immigration, and (c) not have an
| incentive to donate all this money to support groups.
|
| https://github.blog/2019-10-09-github-and-us-government-
| deve...
| [deleted]
| legostormtroopr wrote:
| The phrasing "While ICE does manage immigration law
| enforcement" seems to suggest that enforcing immigration
| law is a _bad_ thing.
|
| Exactly what about managing immigration law is something
| worth rallying against?
| fit2rule wrote:
| When those desperate immigrants end up separated from
| their children, who are then put in cages...
|
| Also, the fact that the immigrants are coming from
| countries that have had their entire social
| infrastructure decimated by other ICE-aligned TLA
| agencies for the purposes of maintaining America's iron
| grip over its local resources...
| prezjordan wrote:
| (a) good
|
| (b) that's quite a stretch. there are organizations who
| fight human trafficking without putting children in cages
|
| (c) you cannot offset working with the morally
| reprehensible as if you're adding carbon to the atmosphere
| srockets wrote:
| You can't offset human lives as if they were carbon
| emissions.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| I think the "anti-trafficking and anti-child exploitation
| efforts" stuff is MOSTLY bullshit cover words for other
| oppressive shit that harms victims and the most vulnerable.
|
| But I personally agree with your thrust. i donate non-
| trivial amounts of MY money to organizations that support
| immigrant (including undocumented) communities, as well as
| my time, as well as participating in campaigns to eg get
| universities to not accept contracts to train ICE and CBP.
|
| But I'm still not personally inclined to boycott github
| over relatively small ICE contracts. I assume almost any
| company is going to have contracts with entities I consider
| immoral. That's just living in society. You have to pick
| your battles, and to me this one isn't it, although I
| respect those who want to make it such. Doing software
| development without interacting with any companies who have
| contracts with entities I consider immoral is probably
| impossible. I personally consider any contract with US DoD
| equally indefensible morally, and it's just not realistic
| to avoid business with companies with DoD contracts. But I
| assume I could find such contracts among github competitors
| too.
|
| I/my employer currently only use free github though.
|
| Although if I worked for a company, I'd be trying to figure
| out how to advocate internally to get them to stop --
| avoiding working for a company with DoD contracts has been
| part of my own personal career choices.
|
| I assume Apple, Google, and Amazon definitely have
| contracts with morally indefensible entities, especially
| government agencies, including ICE/CBP/DHS -- I still use
| AWS, and most of y'all do too right? If people boycotting
| github over ICE contracts are not boycotting AWS, have you
| thought about why or why not? I'm not assuming you can't
| have a good reason, just curious if you've thought about it
| and what it is. i don't totally understand why github has
| become the posterboy for this, when they seem pretty
| typical and probably far from worst, when compared with say
| AWS.
|
| While the company I work for uses github, we don't pay for
| it; we DO pay for AWS, which also has ICE contracts...
| dannyw wrote:
| I really, really, would like us to stop considering blocking
| access to legal organizations because of political views.
|
| Can you imagine your license of Microsoft Windows being de-
| activated because of a social justice campaign?
| 3131s wrote:
| The consideration is whether or not to boycott their
| software in response. Whether or not Microsoft decides to
| provide services to ICE is still up to them.
| gowld wrote:
| > began a lengthy and intensive process of advocating for broad
| and open access to GitHub in sanctioned countries.
|
| > Over the course of two years, we were able to demonstrate how
| developer use of GitHub advances human progress, international
| communication, and the enduring US foreign policy of promoting
| free speech and the free flow of information.
|
| What about orgnanizations and individuals working to hpromote the
| free flow of information, but aren't on the top-5 market cap
| coporations? Are they also exempt from sanctions?
| blackrock wrote:
| When will Trump sanction Github?
| ro_bit wrote:
| Wouldn't make sense. The blog post indicates they went through
| legal channels to make this happen
| 0xFFC wrote:
| Thank you Github. We truly appreciate it. I hope one day US will
| return to JCPOA, and our government can build on it new deals.
| kimodee wrote:
| As a Syrian I'm delighted to see Syria mentioned specifically.
|
| I started my career doing iOS development while in Syria and had
| to jump through hoops and loops so I can submit my apps to the
| App Store. I had to open accounts in Lebanon, use VPNs to log in
| to the connect portal and one point even being on the VPN
| wouldn't work.
|
| I think more companies need to follow suit here, there are a lot
| of independent developers in these countries that would benefit
| from this.
| shayanbahal wrote:
| Seems that some functionalities, such as private repositories,
| are still not available to the Iranian users:
| https://twitter.com/yashar_rashedi/status/134660380380674867...
| zinekeller wrote:
| It seems that they are currently dismantling the restrictions
| for the already-affected users (since that the licence is
| specifically only for Iran, not other embargoed countries like
| Syria). Probably they can submit a request that points out to
| the post to expedite this.
|
| (Now the next challenge is how to get GitHub paid services. As
| I understand they can now have full services - except that
| probably no payment processor that handles Iran.)
| natfriedman wrote:
| Right on all counts.
| stickfigure wrote:
| I'm surprised Iran doesn't block Github. There's plenty of
| political content on Github - it makes a half-decent blogging
| platform for the technically inclined.
| chadash wrote:
| Examples? I've never come across anything heavily political,
| aside from maybe "free software" advocacy, which I assume isn't
| something most governments find particularly threatening.
| hhggfdss wrote:
| There's lots of nitwits like this one
| https://github.com/fabacab
| securingsincity wrote:
| Not Iranian but a very famous repo is the 996 repo
| https://github.com/996icu/996.ICU (>250k stars) which
| advocates for Chinese Developers working a 996 schedule.
| Depending on where you look you can find a lot of political
| content on Github from all over the world.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| To be clear, he means "advocates for" in the sense that you
| have an advocate who is an ally.
|
| One could interpret this as "this repo support 996" which
| is the opposite of reality, without that context.
| vhold wrote:
| Some examples can be found in their public record:
| https://github.com/github/gov-takedowns
| xtian wrote:
| https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/crash_cours.
| ..
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| This is another example of something technically political
| but not something the Iranian government would censor...
| etwigg wrote:
| https://github.com/mytakedotorg/us-presidential-debates
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| Why would Iran block this though? Their own national news
| outlet covers the presidential debates...
| [deleted]
| LockAndLol wrote:
| If TOR and I2P are a thing in Iran, they block github if they
| like but people will find a way to access it.
| subaquamille wrote:
| You're right about censorship. However most Iranians have a VPN
| installed on their phone and rarely gets trouble for doing so
| and speak freely but anonymously. Iran gov is actually a
| democratie quite more liberal than most western people think.
| Yes, there is censorship, unfair courts cases, corruption, and
| repression. Still we can see this in most of the countries,
| often in harden terms. Should we speak about Assange ?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran
| hojjat12000 wrote:
| Don't give them ideas! Also, I haven't seen a lot of political
| stuff related to Iran on Github.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Give it time? Github was previously doing the "censorship" of
| Iranians... now that it's available I expect we'll see more
| of this kind of thing:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_GitHub
| hojjat12000 wrote:
| Github was available to Iranian up until two years ago. The
| general public is not that familiar with github (just like
| the rest of the world). But it is very likely that if the
| government feel like it, they just go ahead and censor it.
| garfieldnate wrote:
| That's wonderful news!
| [deleted]
| hsuehyuan wrote:
| but still not in china
| SommaRaikkonen wrote:
| > We want every developer to be able to collaborate on GitHub,
| and we are working with the US government to secure similar
| licenses for developers in Crimea and Syria as well.
|
| I'm very interested in hearing about the experience of HN people
| from these regions in terms of open source collabs. Since Github
| has such a large presence, what are you all using instead?
| aasasd wrote:
| When the Great Firewall started blocking Github, there was a
| post on Reddit (iirc) saying Chinese devs basically had to
| abandon the profession and switch to other work--supposedly
| because so much development these days depends on libraries and
| frameworks that are on Github.
|
| Though, I recently learned that Taobao has a publicly-available
| mirror of npm packages.
|
| However, I'm also noticing more and more popular repositories
| with Chinese language, in the past couple of years--they gather
| plenty of stars presumably just due to the population size
| (can't judge them on merit). I guess the GFW block was lifted
| and Github is popular for publishing software even for
| consumption in China.
| tgragnato wrote:
| Gists and other subdomains are still blocked, but the APEX is
| available.
|
| This is one of those cases where ECH would really make sense:
| the censor is forced to choose whether to pass TLS
| connections to an IP or not.
| modo_mario wrote:
| Github being fully blocked never lasted more than a few days
| I believe. Nevertheless I imagine a lot of Chinese also use
| Gitee or the like. If a library or something like that is a
| really common dependency i'd imagine it would have a copy on
| such places.
| natfriedman wrote:
| GitHub still allows public repo access even in sanctioned
| locations like Syria and Crimea.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| > Crimea
|
| Why would Crimea be sanctioned? It was annexed.
|
| That's like sanctioning the citizens of Iraq for the 2003 US
| invasion and occupation...
| Merman_Mike wrote:
| https://www.state.gov/ukraine-and-russia-sanctions/
|
| ctrl + f "Crimea", there's some interesting information
| there. It lists specific companies and explains why.
|
| edit: This is a specific example:
| https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm889
| option wrote:
| yes, it's stupid and such sanctions led to more anti-
| west/us and more pro-russia sentiment in Crimea.
|
| Source: have relatives there
| Merman_Mike wrote:
| Which parts of the Crimean sanctions are normal people
| most upset about?
|
| The ones I'm seeing on the Treasury page target specific
| individuals and companies. And they're coordinated with
| Canada and other countries, and the EU.
| aasasd wrote:
| Speaking of freelancers as others did, basically they all
| went through acquaintances or shell companies in Russia
| in order to receive funds from the West. Which doesn't
| sound like what the US wanted, to me.
| select-all wrote:
| The termination of processing in Crimea by Visa and
| MasterCard was actually a big deal. It came out of
| nowhere. One morning ATMs and terminals in shops just
| stopped working and everybody was left with maybe some
| cash and a bunch of useless cards. It was not a joke. I
| was making trips to the nearest working ATM in Russia
| with like 15 credit cads of our friends and relatives
| with scribbled pin-codes - a 6-7 hour drive one way,
| often only to find that we need to drive further to find
| a not yet emptied ATM. And then returning with a bag of
| cash.
|
| And then the same winter Ukraine cut electricity and
| water supply. I remember doing homework with kids by a
| candle light, wearing warm jackets inside because heating
| didn't work. Fun times. I don't know how this all was
| supposed to turn people of Crimea back to Ukraine and who
| thought it was a good idea. I think it worked the
| opposite way and turned a lot of locals into supporters
| of the annexation.
|
| Anyway, I'd say the most upsetting result of the
| sanctions is almost total absence of large international
| and Russian business in Crimea. It makes everything very
| expensive. It's like an additional tax on everything. For
| example, no large Russian bank has a local branch. There
| are only few small local banks and as a result it is
| really hard to get a business loan or mortgage, and the
| rates are bad. There are almost no stores of big food
| chains, and it means the food is more expensive than in
| mainland Russia; there are no McDonalds, no Burger King
| or Starbucks; you cannot receive an international
| delivery and you have to pay to one of the many proxy
| services that re-send packages if you want to receive a
| package from Amazon; no international flights which means
| you always need to buy a flight to Moscow first; etc.
| AnonymousPlanet wrote:
| Looks like your real problem is that the new overlords
| actually give a shit about the people. They don't invest
| in anything unless it is strategically valuable
| infrastructure.
| select-all wrote:
| Well, almost. The problem is that _nobody_ gives a shit
| about the people. The old overlords demonstrated how much
| they care by cutting off the power and water supply. The
| new overlords are not interested in taking more risks to
| continue what they started. The international community
| has a very little clue about anything, a strong opinion
| about everything, and not enough time and attention to
| give shit about the people.
|
| But this GitHub announcement gives a hope that someone
| somewhere gives a shit about the problems of real people
| and that the sanctions will eventually end one way or
| another.
| simonh wrote:
| Why no Russian businesses? I can understand blaming the
| West and Ukraine for their boycotts, but how come Russia
| gets a pass for screwing you over as well?
| select-all wrote:
| Yeah, Russia is getting a lot of criticism for this from
| locals, but nothing changes. The reason is that any large
| russian business is an international business. They are
| either a publicly trading company, or have a headquarter
| in Europe, or partially owned by an international
| company. For them getting sanctioned would mean multi-
| millions losses, losing investors, suppliers, and much
| more. Even the largest state-owned Russian bank cannot
| afford to open a branch in Crimea because (as they have
| publicly commented) this will result in mass loss of
| their investors and will crash their stock price.
| [deleted]
| goblin89 wrote:
| After annexation, a number of sanctions were put in place
| against Crimea as a whole. Visa and MasterCard stopped
| processing payments, eBay and Amazon stopped shipping,
| Upwork blocked freelancers with Crimean addresses. Some
| of the sanctions were lifted months to years later, but I
| am wondering how this must have made the average citizen
| of the annexed region feel in meantime.
| option wrote:
| the freelancers and devs were the ones: (a) most
| independent from the government (derived their livelihood
| not from state) and (b) most liberal-minded and friendly
| to the West.
|
| Now, because of sanctions, they can only work for Russian
| government and companies.
| hintbits wrote:
| They can also move to the part of Ukraine not under the
| occupation.
|
| Trying to pretend it's business as usual is supporting
| the occupation.
| select-all wrote:
| For most of us this is not option for personal reasons.
| Old parents who will not move, kids going to school here,
| etc. Not to mention that I don't have any relatives or
| friends in Ukraine and moving there would require to cut
| all personal and business relationships.
| jimmy2020 wrote:
| same thing for Syria.
| papito wrote:
| Except that Iraqis were not forced to take US citizenship.
| They are still, and will be, citizens of Iraq.
|
| I _think_ it 's still possible to hold Ukrainian
| citizenship in Russia-occupied Crimea, but your life will
| be thoroughly miserable.
| Grustaf wrote:
| Probably because an overwhelming majority of the Crimeans
| wanted to belong to Russia - they are collaborators...
| nickik wrote:
| Crimea was part of Russia for 100s of years and never had
| much to do with Ukrainian nationalism. When the Soviet
| Union was established Crimea was part of the Russia
| Republic.
|
| It was only a power play by Khrushchev to move Crimea
| into the Ukrainian Republic, since that was his primary
| base of power.
|
| Since during the collapse of the Soviet Union, the power
| broke down along the lines of the established Republics
| Crimea just defaulted into Ukraine even while in terms of
| infrastructure, population and military port it was
| Russian.
|
| It was certainty a terrible way how Russia forced the
| change in the boundary but the people there real had
| nothing to do with it and shouldn't be punished.
| bushin wrote:
| Blatant Russian propaganda. Shame on you! Shame!
| viktorcode wrote:
| It was a part of Russian Empire and later USSR. Many
| territories including Ukraine were part of it. The modern
| Russia is just a part of old countries' land which don't
| include Crimea.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > Probably because an overwhelming majority of the
| Crimeans wanted to belong to Russia
|
| If you're referring to the vote held in 2014, it was
| boycotted by supporters of Ukraine (because the vote
| itself was unconstitutional under the Ukranian
| constitution).
| Grustaf wrote:
| No I'm not, then I would have said 95%...
| adamc wrote:
| Presumably, they want to keep the pressure on Russia. I
| don't know why we would sanction Crimea rather than all
| Russian-held territory, though.
| curtis3389 wrote:
| IIRC, Russia provides gas to Europe.
| dgudkov wrote:
| Because Crimea isn't part of Russia for the US and much
| of the world.
| helge9210 wrote:
| No, it wasn't. It's under occupation.
| select-all wrote:
| VPN with kill switch on all devices and an address in mainland
| Russia in github profile. I know quite a few people who live in
| Crimea and do contract work for US companies, who are not
| disclosing their actual location to their employers.
| SahAssar wrote:
| I'm just guessing, but probably a VPN.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| I'm in a first-world nation and I still have to use a VPN to
| access parts of the Internet like georestricted content on
| Netflix and YouTube...
| amiraliakbari wrote:
| Access to public repositories was not blocked, so those who
| wanted to work with open source projects were unaffected. For a
| while after the GitHub block, many used GitLab. In fact many
| people who needed private repositories were already using
| GitLab because of the limitations of GitHub private
| repositories and its pricing. Also many companies in Iran are
| using a self-hosted GitLab. After recent blocking of Iranian
| accounts on GitHub and GitLab, even more companies started
| using self-hosted GitLab.
|
| The blocking of GitHub accounts was unexpected and presumably
| took into account the usage history, so many accounts were
| blocked and had no further access to their private repositories
| and gists even if they used VPN after that.
|
| GitLab was blocked in Iran after they migrated to GCP, but was
| accessible with VPN. A few month ago GitLab also started
| blocking some Iranian accounts, so our company moved all of its
| repositories to a self-hosted instance just to be safe.
| eternalban wrote:
| Are there any obstacles to creating a github clone for Iran,
| outside of a viable business model? All these ghettoes of
| company private gitlabs are of no use to an Iranian software
| industry. Arguably it is even detrimental to Iran's national
| security.
|
| Speaking of which [the industry], wtf? I left Tehran in 79,
| and I must tell you, AmirAli, that I fully expected Iran to
| be a software powerhouse by now (if not earlier), given the
| national propensities and talents, and the lack of an
| artificially imposed barrier to starting up an
| industrial/technical sector, and fairly open access to
| technical literature. Can you shed light on this?
| varjag wrote:
| Talented people are found everywhere around the world, and
| many are in Iran for sure. But what exactly made you expect
| a theocracy becoming a software powerhouse?
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| > In fact many people who needed private repositories were
| already using GitLab because of the limitations of GitHub
| private repositories and its pricing.
|
| Today I learned how similar to Iranians I am.
|
| > many accounts were blocked and had no further access to
| their private repositories and gists even if they used VPN
| after that.
|
| Can't access with VPN? How?
| sbx320 wrote:
| > Can't access with VPN? How?
|
| Your account is unable to access _any_ private repository
| after being flagged as being from a sanctioned country.
| That's regardless of where you're actually accessing your
| account from.
|
| While you could create a new account, you still couldn't
| grant that new account access (since you can no longer
| access private repositories from your primary account).
| Also a new account still runs the risk of getting flagged
| if you accidentally access the account without a VPN
| enabled just once.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Oh, I see. Well that's super lame. This requires a great
| deal of cooperation on Microsoft's part.
| arlk wrote:
| Most people in Syria use VPN anyway because most of the tech
| tools are blocked, that includes everything hosted on GCP
| (including GitLab), Android docs, Bitbucket, SEO tools, not to
| mention cloud providers, just to name a few.
|
| Actually the next day after GitHub ban, I rolled out a GitLab
| instance on my server and opened it for free access and
| published it in Syrian devs groups, but it barely had a dozen
| active users after 6 months, and all from one company not
| individual contributors, so I had to turn it off.
|
| What I can say from my experience and how we as Syrians look at
| open source contributions is that we see it as our ticket to
| get a better chance in leaving Syria to a good job that allows
| us to start a new life. It's not something we do as a hobby or
| for fun in our spare time, because we don't really have spare
| time.
|
| Btw, it's quite common to have Syrians working on projects for
| US and Europe and avoid sanctions by VPN and registering their
| business in Dubai. I know a Syrian company that is a GitHub and
| AWS partner.
| asdfsfkwqe wrote:
| What about those pure women in Iran? And those got locked up who
| simply spoke out how bad their government is? IT'S DICTATORSHIP!
| noitpmeder wrote:
| Well this seems pretty timely.
| floatingatoll wrote:
| "We were working for two years to get this license."
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25648849
| AviationAtom wrote:
| I'm kind of reminded of the HN post about a developer of a
| project who was from the Middle East and claimed that they
| couldn't have another developer work on their project due to
| where they were from in the Middle East. I'd like to say the
| countries were Iran and Israel.
| politelemon wrote:
| Just in time, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25644056
|
| And any frivolity aside, well done to github, both for this and
| also with their developer defense fund against take downs.
| Whether you like them or not, these are very positive outcomes
| for devs.
| turminal wrote:
| They are probably trying to put out the fire started by that
| tweet. So not really in time.
|
| Edit: apparently this was a coincidence
| drstewart wrote:
| Securing an embargo exemption is probably not something you
| do as a quick workaround to an issue making the rounds on
| social media.
| ihuman wrote:
| The press release says they've been working on this for a
| couple of years. It was not an overnight change.
| zinekeller wrote:
| Yep, it seems that the person you're replying to doesn't
| know that it usually takes longer to grant such licenses,
| GitHub got really lucky here (or the US have thinked about
| the prestige of having GitHub there).
| pepele wrote:
| +1 respect for the community and github
| sebslomski wrote:
| That's huge! Thank you, GitHub!
| breck wrote:
| Seriously, well done GitHub! There aren't many big companies
| that follow through to do the right thing. Great stuff.
| gowld wrote:
| They lobbied the government to give them a singular exemption
| to a law that interfered with their revenue generation. They
| didn't help anyone else doing software business with
| Iranians. This is monopolistic behavior -- a company using
| its market-dominating power to carve out special rights for
| itself.
| breck wrote:
| I mean they could have just not spent any time on it and
| moved on. I agree that it's stupid government thing they
| have to deal with, but at least they did something and
| hopefully the government will fix its ways.
| sytse wrote:
| As the GitLab CEO I want to congratulate Nat and GitHub in
| obtaining this license. This is great news for the people of
| Iran, GitHub, open source, and the software industry. Thank you.
| I imagine obtaining this license took a consistent effort from
| the company. GitHub and in particular Nat truly care about open
| source.
| eggsome wrote:
| Speaking of Nat (and semi-related to this post), I noticed that
| when he did the reddit AMA just before Microsoft took control
| the only highly rated question that went unanswered related to
| censorship in China.
|
| https://i.reddit.com/r/AMA/comments/8pc8mf/im_nat_friedman_f...
|
| Now that you guys have had some time to formulate policy do you
| have any comment?
| cl0ckt0wer wrote:
| After what happened to Ma who would criticize the CCP? He has
| everything to lose.
| woutr_be wrote:
| Nobody knows what happened to Jack Ma, it was all
| speculation based on a single source.
|
| The latest news says he is just laying low, but that of
| course doesn't make for a good story.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/05/alibaba-founder-jack-ma-
| is-l...
| dmix wrote:
| Or Daryl Morey in the NBA. As a fan I've noticed it's
| really quiet there about China across the league.
| natfriedman wrote:
| We have a really excellent policy regarding government
| takedowns: https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-
| team@latest/github/site-...
|
| Among other things, the policy requires that governments that
| want content removed from GitHub issue a lawful request to
| us, which we then push to a public repo:
| https://github.com/github/gov-takedowns
|
| So you are able to see all of the government takedown
| requests that we have processed, there. You'll notice that
| there are only 3 directories in that repo: Russia, China, and
| Spain. When we do (reluctantly) take down content at the
| request of a government, we try to limit the takedown only to
| viewers in the country that made the request, rather than
| doing a global takedown.
| ircoder wrote:
| Sid, when can we expect the same thing happen at GitLab?
|
| PS: I'm trailing the comments and it is very interesting to see
| how this post is turned into a competition about GitLab vs.
| GitHub vs. BitBucket. But fellas, this is not about tech, it's
| about the people who use it. In particular about a thriving
| community of talented and young developers who have been
| ignored, sanctioned, and betrayed over and over both
| domestically and internationally.
| sytse wrote:
| GitLab is looking into whether we may be able to obtain a
| similar license.
|
| PS: I agree this post should be about GitHub and what they
| achieved for the thriving community of developers in Iran who
| are making things work despite their circumstances.
| hojjat12000 wrote:
| As an Iranian interested in opensource and free software, I
| thank you for Gitlab. It is devastating that this was a thing
| to begin with. But I'm happy that at least we can pull/push
| again! Happy coding. Edit: I misread the OP. But the message is
| still the same, thank you for Gitlab.
| ksec wrote:
| >I thank you for this
|
| Just in case you misread. He is the CEO of Git _Lab_.
| hojjat12000 wrote:
| I did misread it. To be honest, I thank him a lot more!
| Gitlab rules!
| chokeartist wrote:
| Nice! You did your customers a solid in resolving this
| political football that was thrust upon you/them.
|
| Thanks for Gitlab and all of your contributions!
| weakboi wrote:
| Well
| dboreham wrote:
| Almost reads like a The Onion post.
| akavel wrote:
| Reading the article, I was honestly surprised that the
| restrictions were _only_ put in place in 2019 - I distinctly
| remember some introductory training when joining a US company
| _years_ ago, which mentioned basically what I understood as:
| "any business with Iran is forbidden". Anyone has a clue why it
| wasn't an issue for GitHub earlier?
| prepperdev wrote:
| That sounds great, but it's a very fragile state of things.
|
| While it certainly makes lives of Iranian developers easier, it
| does not make it a good idea to put their code there: laws
| change, and quickly sometimes.
| Aperocky wrote:
| Does Iran not have it's own version of online git service after
| such a long time? I imagine it's not too difficult to set a
| barebone git hosting service up (without the hub functions,
| obviously).
| spicybright wrote:
| Right? Unless someone was actively squashing sites down, it
| doesn't take much attach a CRUD to a directory of folders for
| git repos.
| duxup wrote:
| I suspect to get the same level of availability and trust
| folks have in github 100% inside Iran using local hosting
| providers / infrastructure is actually a bit difficult.
|
| I think it's kinda hard to compete with the big boys with
| limited resources / footprint even whit / perhaps because of
| sanctions.
| smaslennikov wrote:
| You make a good point, I'm surprised to see it downvoted.
|
| It's always a risk to put IP in a bucket you may lose access to
| just because of politics.
| rubatuga wrote:
| Git is a distributed system, so even if you lose access there
| isn't a huge data loss.
| boogies wrote:
| That's true if you use it the way its creator does, but not
| so much when you replace git send-mail with GitHub's
| proprietary extensions (issues, etc).
| toper-centage wrote:
| Unfortunately, github is 50% git, 50% proprietary code that
| you don't control and can't neatly export your data for
| other platforms. All these git hosts are walled Gardens.
| It's a sad state of affairs but not really limited to git
| (Gmail walled Garden despite email standard, messaging
| apps, etc).
| grumple wrote:
| Github has some great management tools for reviewing code
| and integrating with various integrations. But so does
| Gitlab, Bitbucket... and I'm sure there are more. They
| aren't 1 for 1 replacements, but they do exist. I'd
| personally recommend against using a ton of integrations
| that tightly bound you to any service.
| prepperdev wrote:
| Yes, making daily on-premise backups would mitigate the
| risk of losing source code.
|
| That applies to everyone, not just Iranian developers:
| setup daily backups of all your code.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| Even more than that, as long as one person has the repo
| cloned you can bootstrap the entire project again, any
| single clone has the entire project history to the most
| recent point it was fetched. Git is neat that way.
| prepperdev wrote:
| That's not necessarily true. If your organization has
| tens of repositories with multiple important branches in
| each, all odds that at least some of those branches are
| lost.
|
| Proper backups of all repos are an answer, of course.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| The way we use git, master has everything that is
| production with short-lived feature branches for
| development work. Not needing to worry about git backups
| is perhaps the least of the benefits of this approach
| (and no real drawbacks as far as I can tell).
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| On the other hand, hopefully the more contact Iranians have
| with the outside world, the more they will petition their
| government for peaceful relations with other countries.
| Obviously GitHub access isn't going to make the difference, but
| rather lots of these kinds of things in aggregate.
| INTPenis wrote:
| Laws change and there are also a bunch of other ways to get
| banned from your code on GH. And once that happens, you have
| nowhere to go.
|
| Much easier to migrate to a Gitlab instance. And they know
| this! Which is why it's so fun to see Github dancing around
| these issues lately. Finally some healthy competition.
|
| I'd love to know how many times MS have tried to buy Gitlab. :D
| Tsarbomb wrote:
| I love how obviously biased you are for Gitlab, it's almost
| like you don't understand how Git works. It is a DISTRIBUTED
| version control system. If GitHub gets banned, change your
| origin and push.
| INTPenis wrote:
| You seem to forget about Issues, Milestones, Projects, Wiki
| docs and more.
| SirYandi wrote:
| Probably a naive question, but is there some way for all
| these elements to held in a git repo as well? Just move
| all your issues/trackers to another platform?
| alexeldeib wrote:
| There are some approaches, e.g.
| https://github.com/dspinellis/git-issue
|
| But I don't think there's much standardization around
| this type of git usage, and I'm not sure how efficient it
| would be for large repos.
| INTPenis wrote:
| It can probably be done but some projects have thousands
| of issues, thousands of PRs with dozens of comments in
| every thread.
|
| It doesn't seem like a good idea to make your git repo
| store all that data.
| imhoguy wrote:
| and users. GH, GL, BB are kind of dev social netwoks.
| Project assets can be archivised/mirrored easily with
| tools or API scripts, but there is no way to link them
| back to live users. Community needs to be rebuild at new
| place and thay is lot of effort.
| dang wrote:
| Can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? We're
| trying for something else here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| jiofih wrote:
| Thankfully git is a _distributed VCS_. You just push the latest
| version somewhere else.
| prepperdev wrote:
| Yes, as answered in another branch, it's possible and
| reasonable to setup continuous / daily backups, if you're
| using a hosted Git service (Github or not). This will
| mitigate the risk of losing access to the code.
|
| It's not advised for these Iranian developers to use any
| Github-specific features, such as issues, wiki, CI, because
| losing them will cause disruption / knowledge loss.
|
| And then the reason to use Github specifically, instead of
| something else is quite low.
| jiofih wrote:
| You don't understand - there is no need to setup backups.
| Every user has a full "backup" of the repository (unless
| using sparse checkouts or other niche configs).
| prepperdev wrote:
| It really depends on how small or large your organization
| is.
|
| If it's a single repo with a single branch, sure. No need
| for explicit backups.
|
| If it's tens of repos with multiple important branches in
| each, then it would be very dangerous to assume that
| developer machines have all of them.
| rhencke wrote:
| This is true for the source control aspects of Git, but not
| all of the project management aspects of GitHub. (wikis,
| gists, gh-pages: yes. issues, pull requests: no)
| papier2020 wrote:
| Why is it _advancing_? Isnt it just giving what rightfully
| theirs?
| dang wrote:
| We've taken the press release flair out of the title above.
| meibo wrote:
| I don't think anyone would have expected this today, but good job
| GitHub.
|
| I honestly think that they're trying their hardest to keep it
| open for everyone - they can't ignore U.S. law as an organization
| of their scale, regardless of their views on issues like this and
| DMCA.
|
| Nat also stays constantly in the public eye and really makes it
| seem like he cares - which is what a modern CEO should do, in my
| opinion.
| MCOfficer wrote:
| I'm not in the legal loop, but would it be beneficial to move
| to a different country or region? For example, the EU comes to
| mind. Would also give me peace of mind regarding my data.
| natfriedman wrote:
| It wouldn't help with sanctions. As I said in the blog:
|
| The US has long imposed broad sanctions on multiple
| countries, including Iran. These sanctions prohibit any US
| company from doing business with anyone in a sanctioned
| country. (These sanctions can also apply to non-US companies
| whose activities directly or indirectly involve the US,
| including merely having payments that flow through US banks
| or payment mechanisms like Visa.)
| da39a3ee wrote:
| This is fantastic positive news and I think it will surprise many
| people (including me) that this was achieved with the involvement
| of a huge mainstream corporation (Microsoft) under the Trump
| administration. Congratulations Github.
| [deleted]
| indrajeetbaghel wrote:
| Coin 555588888888888888877777
| michaeltimo wrote:
| Plot twist: Now all of Iranians which were hidden behind VPNs
| reveal their identity, and GH will block them all together.
| neom wrote:
| Seems like Nat Friedman is proving to be an excellent CEO for
| GitHub.
| dannyw wrote:
| Especially with the youtube-dl incident.
|
| Nat deserves praise for his leadership.
| f6v wrote:
| Github still blocked in Crimea?
| harrisonjackson wrote:
| Nat's tweet in response to the other HN thread about a company
| getting locked out of their github because a developer opened
| their laptop in iran.
|
| https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1346453242499121155
|
| Pretty fast to get this posted...
| mhh__ wrote:
| https://github.com/fre5h/DoctrineEnumBundle/pull/12#issuecom...
| this is a classic
| [deleted]
| natfriedman wrote:
| Pure coincidence. We were working for two years to get this
| license.
| jonas21 wrote:
| Speaking of fast responses, your response time on these
| comments is incredible!
| boogies wrote:
| Took nearly a week to respond to the original tweet
| (https://nitter.net/sebslomski/status/1344219609923276801),
| but not much more than an hour to respond to the quoting
| tweet from an account with an order of magnitude more
| followers (Edit: it looks like it depends on how you count
| "response":
| https://nitter.net/GitHubHelp/status/1346250095700946956#m
| was 18 hours ago,
| https://nitter.net/sebslomski/status/1346467442428530691#m
| was 3).
| zinekeller wrote:
| First, American holidays does screw up customer service
| that in some instances it knocks out the very service (a
| la Slack). Second, despite posting a FAQ from the US
| treasury department that apparently excludes this case,
| the posters have missed the point that it _only applies
| to financial services_. Software is _much more regulated_
| (the silver lining is that cryptography is no longer
| munitions-class export fortunately) than most commenters
| think and that behind-the-scenes negotiations tends to
| happen especially with regards to cryptography.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| Thank you.
| ddevault wrote:
| Hey Nat, since you're on the line here, can I ask for more
| details about how this process might apply to other software
| forges? Were you able to secure a general exception for your
| line of business, or is it specific to GitHub? If the latter,
| how difficult/expensive was the process?
|
| Great work, by the way. Kudos as well for committing to a
| DMCA abuse fund.
| natfriedman wrote:
| The license is specific to GitHub.
|
| However, we don't want this to be a competitive advantage
| for GitHub; developers should choose GitHub because it is
| better, not because it has a license from OFAC. So we have
| taken it upon ourselves to advocate for OFAC to allow
| developers in Iran and other sanctioned countries greater
| access to all platforms, and we will continue to do so.
|
| This kind of change would likely require an update to
| OFAC's regulations, the issuance of an updated general
| license, or the issuance of formal guidance from the
| agency. We hope that OFAC's issuance of a license to GitHub
| will help pave the way for broader access to similar
| platforms.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Are you concerned that the first time someone from Iran
| posts something controversial (eg. "Opensource Nuclear
| enrichment centrifuge control algorithm") that the
| license will be knee-jerk revoked with no notice?
| not2b wrote:
| Github might need to take down something like that from
| any developer regardless of country, because of other
| export laws, concerning nuclear technology. But I don't
| think that would result in punishment of the developer's
| country. But IANAL and the rules are complex.
| Daho0n wrote:
| If it is posted from Iran how can it be under US export
| laws?
| toast0 wrote:
| Once it's on Github, if it leaves the country it's hosted
| in, that's export.
| grumple wrote:
| If it goes through US servers to anyone outside the
| country, serving it would be exporting it.
| anticensor wrote:
| Yes, but re-export is covered under a separate regime.
| Intellectual property served royalty free does not have a
| correspondent item in internal processing and re-export
| regime.
| aasasd wrote:
| Logically speaking, if someone shared such code _from
| Iran_ , that would be the opposite of what the US
| government is concerned about. It would be import into
| the US instead of export.
| ddevault wrote:
| Thanks for clarifying, and for working to open things up
| for all platforms, I really appreciate it.
| lambda_obrien wrote:
| Luckily, your code is open source so those in Iran can
| run their own instance locally.
| [deleted]
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| Thank you for everyone's hard work in bringing open source to
| _everyone_.
| Triv888 wrote:
| They were taking their sweet time processing the application
| until today.
| goshx wrote:
| You have my respect regardless.
| aaomidi wrote:
| I probably started too many stinks on the Microsoft yammer
| page related to this. Thanks for finally getting it done.
| knocte wrote:
| I still can't access my company's org private repos (a
| company incorporated in Hong Kong, with only European
| employees) because I opened my laptop in a hotel in Iran 3
| months ago.
| natfriedman wrote:
| It's taking us a day or so to remove all the restrictions.
| Email me if this isn't fixed today: nat@github.com.
| 1Student wrote:
| Thank you Nat. It is better that Github be fully available on
| other countries sanctioned by US like Syria, Venezuela, ...
|
| I am from Iran. unfortunately, we are prisoners of mullahs
| like peoples of other countries sanctioned by US that are
| prisoners of their dictatorship governments.
| gabythenerd wrote:
| Github is fully available in Venezuela though. The US
| sanctions are mostly against the government in our case
| (I'm Venezuelan).
| user-the-name wrote:
| Now that you've done that, are you going to work on not
| supporting the child rapists at ICE next?
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| I'm curious: what was the rationale for not talking about
| this at all until it was ready? It seems like "we're working
| on a possible solution" would have been a good response to
| the many complaints about this.
|
| Was there some reason to believe that mentioning you were
| working towards this license would have a detrimental effect
| on the review process for that license?
| natfriedman wrote:
| I mentioned it many times, actually:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22630340
|
| https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1250200008621608962?
| s...
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| Thanks for clarifying; the mention of "advocating" hadn't
| seemed connected to the idea of obtaining a "license".
|
| Congratulations on prevailing here.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Saying "we are applying for an OFAC license" will lead to a
| deluge of other tech companies applying for the same
| license, and the likely outcome is the OFAC says "we don't
| have the manpower to review all these, reject them all".
| dijit wrote:
| If they had been denied the licence then it's potentially
| misleading. Generally you don't comment on things if there
| is a very realistic chance they're unachievable.
| aflag wrote:
| Why would it be misleading to say they are applying for a
| license?
| sbarre wrote:
| Because this is the Internet and the angry mob often
| doesn't understand how the real world works, and the
| cognitive load of dealing with that angry mob when said
| things don't go the way they've naively imagined it
| _must_ is exhausting.
| aflag wrote:
| I'd imagine that later saying your license was denied
| would direct the internet mob in your favour, not against
| you.
| crististm wrote:
| That would work on the hypothesis that the internet mob
| is a rationale agent. That may not be so.
| sbarre wrote:
| We can certainly agree to disagree! ;-)
| ncallaway wrote:
| My guess is two reasons:
|
| - Expectations settings. If they say they're working on a
| possible solution, people will expect the solution to
| materialize and get upset when it doesn't. Since this seems
| like it was a lobbying effort with OFAC, there was probably
| a large degree of uncertainty on whether this would happen
| at all.
|
| - Like you suggested, maybe they thought any public comment
| about this might put at risk the conversations they were
| having with OFAC?
| aaomidi wrote:
| I'm going to guess that the US government wouldn't have
| appreciated the external pressure going public about it
| would've added onto their review process.
| dbt00 wrote:
| as a software engineer, you have some* control over the
| scheduling and cadence of your features you develop.
|
| You have no control over when you get a permit from the
| government like this. It's nuts. Even when the open source
| exception to ITAR was passed in the late 90s MIT was very
| careful not to release kerberos V outside the USA until
| they had very clear guarantees that it was approved.
| TavsiE9s wrote:
| Well then: lucky coincidence.
| tehjoker wrote:
| Send the codes baby. Iran shouldn't be deprived of world
| technological development because the US is an ass.
| Ayesh wrote:
| This is awesome, thank you!
|
| It says it's a two year effort. It's a great length for a company
| to go for, specially when they could very much default to what
| other companies are doing and simply block access.
|
| As someone who comes from an underprivileged country, and just
| paid extra to renew a visa just because I come from an
| underprivileged country, I can see at least part of the daily
| trouble that we have nothing to do, apart from being born in the
| "wrong country".
|
| This is a very wholesome news and made my day.
| [deleted]
| drummer wrote:
| Congrats. This is the kind of news I love to hear especially
| about 'free flow of information'.
| helge9210 wrote:
| Crimea should stay under restrictions until the end of the
| occupation.
| Daho0n wrote:
| So should the American island.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| M$: "President of the United States"
|
| U$: "CEO of Microsoft"
|
| M$: "People are bad-mouthing one of my toys on Hacker News, here
| is a cheque"
|
| U$: "Say no more"
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| This goes to show you that even though you might have "technical"
| solutions to control, e.g. decentralization, eventually _policy_
| control will win if your government is motivated enough.
|
| Take cryptocurrency for example. Yes it's decentralized and the
| government can't seize from the blockchain. Instead, all they
| have to do is ask "Do you have crypto?" and you answer truthfully
| or perjure yourself or risk worse consequences.
|
| Your government doesn't need control over your technology. They
| have control over you. Technical and policy changes must go hand
| in hand. You can't use one to solve the other.
| gowld wrote:
| decentralization means that a foreign government can't steal my
| bitcoin, not that my own government can't.
| raxxorrax wrote:
| Honestly, technical reasons should be put forward why a block
| plainly isn't possible. It is also a disadvantage compared to
| anonymous internet usage in general. I am sure many Iranians used
| Github just fine.
|
| Establish the the network doesn't support sanctions like this and
| diplomatic channels will find other venues. But free net
| accessibility only helps against regimes like we can find in Iran
| anyway.
| jimmy2020 wrote:
| I hope this is done with Syria which is destroyed by the Iranian
| regime and left 10 million Syrians as refugees.
|
| What makes things worse, Syria is sanctioned which means American
| companies cannot hire any Syrian because there's a legality
| issue. Meaning even Syrian refugees who fled the country cannot
| find a proper job.
|
| Your country is destroyed, your life is ruined and yet you cannot
| restore your career. Being denied your right to work is the worst
| thing that can happen to anyone after war.
|
| Yet, I think this is the right decision. Good job GitHub and
| congrats to our fellow Iranian developers.
| beshrkayali wrote:
| Syria is destroyed by American politics as much as it is
| destroyed by Russian and Iranian politics, and primarily Syrian
| internal politics. There are a lot of European countries that
| are willing to hire Syrian refugees without having to make it a
| humanitarian cause.
| jimmy2020 wrote:
| > There are a lot of European countries that are willing to
| hire Syrian refugees without having to make it a humanitarian
| cause.
|
| Not true.
|
| Basically you have no idea what is sanctions and how it
| works.
|
| And it is "humanitarian cause" I am not making things up.
| This is the definition of humanitarian cause.
| beshrkayali wrote:
| No. You are wrong.
|
| Syrians living under official refugee status can work in
| countries where they have this status, at the very least in
| the EU. If they have that status in a country outside of
| the EU, I'm not exactly sure about the legal situation but
| I'd think it's similar to other citizens of the country
| where they have refugee status.
|
| Source: I'm Syrian and a refugee.
|
| If a company wants to hire me, I don't want it to be for a
| humanitarian reason, I want it to be based on competence.
| jimmy2020 wrote:
| If you live in European countries and have permanent
| residency you are officially not a refugee. You are lucky
| to be in the EU. Not all Syrians are. And this is not a
| hypothetical comment. This is what's happening to me as a
| Syrian refugee who is outside EU/US.
| beshrkayali wrote:
| > What makes things worse, Syria is sanctioned which
| means American companies cannot hire any Syrian because
| there's a legality issue. Meaning even Syrian refugees
| who fled the country cannot find a proper job.
|
| My understand is that "a refugee" and having residency
| (permanent or not) are two separate and unrelated things.
|
| Refugee = outside your country for a specific set of
| reasons you can find on Wikipedia.
|
| What I meant was that being a refugee doesn't prevent EU
| companies from hiring you. I'm well aware of how terrible
| sanctions are, but not all EU countries have the exact
| same set of blockade/embargo as American ones. In
| general, work laws and authorization between any two
| countries that don't have explicit agreement tend to be
| difficult.
| jimmy2020 wrote:
| Permanent residency means you are not a refugee anymore
| and you can work freely because you are authorized as a
| permanent resident to do so. You have full rights to do
| what any citizen can do.
|
| I am not going to argue with you or refer you to
| wikipedia. Instead, you may take a look at any company
| that hires globally and tells me then what is Syria's
| status or Syrian national.
|
| This applies to GitHub and all American companies and
| it's not "work laws" this how financial sector works
| around the globe.
|
| Another thing quickly, no one is asking to hire on a
| humanitarian basis. Don't deny people their right to work
| and profit because of who they are.
| Fazel94 wrote:
| > ... country cannot find a proper job.
|
| As an Iranian who saw many people back home facing sanctions,
| those sanctions are enforced based on the country of residence
| and not origin. So refugees are okay to hire, as are Iranians
| currently residing in other countries.
| jimmy2020 wrote:
| refugee = outside not inside the country.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-06 23:02 UTC)